Banzai!: General discussion of the Kamikaze and Ramming

[VBF-13]

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

Thanks, Steve. Cutting to just the Kamikazes, that's a lot of those younger, less-experienced pilots. As the U.S. lost around ten ships there (mostly destroyers) due to air assaults, even if those were all off Kamikaze hits, one could see how inefficient those tactics were by that late stage in the campaign.

 

[steve51]

VBF-13,
15 ships were sunk and 50 damaged while on picket duty. 1348 crewmen were killed and 1586 were wounded. Nearly all these losses were inflicted by kamikazes.

 

[JoeB]

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

This was posted earlier, quite a bit lower number:
" INTERROGATION NAV NO. 6
USSBS NO. 40
THE ATTACK ON PEARL HARBOR
THE KAMIKAZE CORPS IN PHILIPPINES AND OKINAWA

TOKYO
18 October 1945

Interrogation of: Captain FUCHIDA, Mitsuo, IJN, a naval aviator since 1928.
Q. How many Kamikaze aircraft were expended during the OKINAWA operations?
A. About 900 in all.

500 Navy Aircraft from JAPAN
300 Army Aircraft from JAPAN
50 Navy Aircraft from FORMOSA
50 Army Aircraft from FORMOSA

These figures are approximations."

I also added up the numbers of a/c for each kamikaze attack of Army and Navy given on these web pages (same as I gave in post 30),
—¤ŒR"ÁU
_•—"ÁU'à
The homepage of the series claims the info is from Japanese archival sources.
In the period of the official Okinawa Campaign per US reckoning, ie April 1-June 21, there are 841 Army and 778 Navy suicide a/c sorties listed, 1,619 total, so in between the two estimates given previously. I can't 100% vouch for the links being directly from Japanese archives but I tend to believe it. OTOH the USSBS interviews asked Japanese officers various quantitative questions without allowing them to consult their records (captured Japanese miltiary records were mainly held in the US till the mid 1950's, few ever translated, then given back to the Japanese govt). In other cases the USSBS interviews give good insight qualitatively but numbers and specifics given as 'as I recall' 'approximately' etc. not surprisingly often differ somewhat from Japanese records. OTOH the estimate in the book you gave might be a count from US side which would be subject to duplication. We can't be sure I guess, but anyway those are 3 different numbers for kamikaze sorties at Okinawa.

Further analyzing the two links I gave, the types of a/c used in suicide attacks, from Oct 44-Aug 45, were:
Army:
Codename/No of sorties
OSCAR 245
SONIA 207
NATE 185
FRANK 153
TONY 100
IDA 64
NICK 60
LILY 28
PEGGY 22
KI-79* 21
HELEN 9
DINAH 7
total 1101
*the Mansyu (ie Manchurian a/c co) Type 2 advanced trainer, based on the 'Nate', it never got a codename.

Navy:
ZEKE 662
JUDY 163
VAL 120
FRANCES 112
KATE 61
OHKA 55
KYUSHU K11W** 54
BETTY 51
JILL 38
RECON SEAPLANE*** 28
GRACE 15
ALF 11
CARRIER ATTACK**** 10
INTERMEDIATE TRAINER***** 7
SUSIE 3
IRVING 2
FLYING BOAT****** 1
MYRT 1
total 1394
**bomb/nav trainer that never got a codename
*** prob mainly Jakes
****probably mainly Kates
*****probably the Kyushu K10W
******an Emily, per another source
There's one Frances mission where the number of a/c isn't give and I assumed it was only 1 as several other Frances missions were.

Joe

 

[steve51]

JoeB,
The book's numbers, broken down a bit, show 1900 navy sorties and 850 army as kamikaze. The biggest discrepancy is in the navy figures.

 

[CobberKane]

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.

Well, I guess one thing we can be sure of is that we are never going to be able to confirm or reject any of our opinions by asking surviving kamikaze pilots for their observations - I believe they're a bit thin on the ground.
These threads tend to wander so maybe I'll just bore everyone by recapping what I've said and leaving it at that. Initially I was musing about the relative effectiveness of a Kamikaze attack vs a bomb, and I speculated that the plane would be travelling at maybe200-300 mph at point of impact. It was suggested that this was way conservative as the various marks of Zero had maximum dive speeds of 400 mph plus so that would be a more logical figure. In response I noted that the zero was notorious for becomming unresponsive at high speed like this and referred to a kamikaze training maual that specifically cautioned against overspeeding in cost of reduced control. But - it was countered - this was a general instruction that did not necescarily refer to the zero, which could be controlled adequately for the task via the rudder and elevators, which were not so prone as the airelons to stiffen up. Fair enough, but then came more evidence in the form of kamikaze training material which recommended that fighter (a catagory that certainly does include the zero) should aim to hit the target at 270 mph, pretty much in line with my guestimate. All of which really leaves us with only two suggestions in support of the idea that kamakazes fighters routinely hit their target at close to their maximum dive speed.

1/ the Instructions were meant for newbies - the shortcommings of the zero in a dive were no so great that an experienced pilot could not overcome them and dive into his target at much higher speeds. Well, even if we accept this, my understanding is that the great majority of kamikazes were NOT experienced pilots an thus would have maximised their chances of a hit by following the instuctions of their trainers, who "gave careful consideration' the best manner to execute an attack - and these instructions recommended an attack speed of about 270mph.

2/ training notwithstanding, many inexperienced pilots would have forgotten what they had been told and just gone in as fast as possible anyway. Okay - if we accept that some pilot s did digress from their carefully considered training surely they would have decreased their chances of hitting the target and therefore have been underrepresented in hits on allied ships?

So, in summary;

The great majority of kamikaze plots had very limited flight experience. The 'carefully considered' training material directed at these pilots cautioned against overspeeding due to the cy of the aircraft controls stiffening up and this advice did not include an exception for the zero, an aircraft well known for this tendancy. It also recommends an attck speed of about 270mph for fighter. Unless the triners got it wrong and the inexperienced pilot knew better, I think all this is pretty good evidence for my assertion that the majority of impact by kamikazes probably occurred in the 200-300 mph range.

 

[VBF-13]

VBF-13,15 ships were sunk and 50 damaged while on picket duty. 1348 crewmen were killed and 1586 were wounded. Nearly all these losses were inflicted by kamikazes.

At Okinawa I count seven destroyers, one escort destroyer, and three minesweepers, all lost due to air assaults. My source, Battle Stations! (1946).

EDIT: Forgot to address the damaged ones you mentioned. That's right, good point, those raise the efficiency-rating of the Kamikazes sent into that battle.

 

[steve51]

VBF-13,
Ah, the discrepancies continue. The book I have shows 10 DD, 2 LCS(L), 3 LSM(R) sunk and lists them by name, location and time of sinking. These losses were only ships on picket duty. All losses during Okinawa are given as 28 sunk and 225 damaged, most by kamikaze. This is the only book I have about this subject, so I'm not very well informed. Maybe JoeB or others have something more definitive.

 

[VBF-13]

Steve, we're closer than that, I counted wrong!

OK, re-count of the Okinawa losses from my source (just due to air assaults, now): 11 destroyers, 1 destroyer escort, 3 minesweepers. I have the names and dates of the losses, too. I actually have 12 destroyers lost, but one (the Halligan, 26MAR45) went down for hitting a mine.

 

[JoeB]

JoeB,
The book's numbers, broken down a bit, show 1900 navy sorties and 850 army as kamikaze. The biggest discrepancy is in the navy figures.

Here's a couple of more things I found, for Navy shimpu-tai/kamikaze* attacks.
In "Kamikaze Attacks of WWII: A Complete History..." by Robin L Reilly, pg 190 it gives a total of Navy special attack sorties in spring-summer '45 as follows:
2/14-3/5: 259
3/26-5/4: 1,207
5/5-6/22: 368
6/23-8/15: 62
Total 1,896, though this obviously extends in both directions from the Okinawa campaign proper (though OTOH US ships at Okinawa were subject to air attack periodically pretty much to the end of the war, though the island itself had been secured)
The book's source in turn is given as Japanese Monograph 141 (the series of campaign histories written by Japanese officers under US supervision during the occupation; more time was available and sometimes more care taken than in putting together the USSBS, but still the quality and detail of these works, the ones I've read directly, vary widely)

But here's another Japanese language web page with details of Navy attacks:
Ií‹L"O"Á•ÊŠé‰æ
It has a table of Navy special attacks in the Okinawa campaign as follows
suicide a/c
Date sent lost
４・６ 215 163
４・７ 53 34
４・11 27 (just gives number lost for this date)
４・12 103 69
４・13 40 2
４・14 52 44
４・15 10 2
４・16 177 106
４・17 45 14
４・20～22 26 3
４・27～30 100 59
５・１～４ 160 65
５・８～11 86 60
５・24～25 107 32
５・27～28 51 26
６・１～７ 23 5
６・16～22 67 28

totals 1315 739

Then, the same page has a table of individual missions which seems very simular to the one in the previous link I gave, which had 753 Navy a/c expended in the exact same period (previously I quoted 4/1-6/21), and a few of these might have been non-Okinawa. So it seems the explanation might be that the higher quoted numbers of Navy sorties are a/c despatched, and the lower number those which actually didn't return (though why the Army figures don't have a similar discrepancy would again be a question). As is well known, kamikazes often returned if they couldn't find a target, for weather or other reasons.

I believe that the actual names and dates of special attack unit crew who died on missions are well known in Japan. These men were by no means forgotten. If a source is tied to this solid information, then it's probably correct. Again I can't say surely that either of these web links are, but I tend to think this is pretty accurate info.

*in the Japanese written language Chinese characters, called 'kanji' in Japanese, can represent either sounds which evolved from their original Chinese pronunciations (or Korean pronuciations if the words came that way long ago), or can be 'morphemes' used to represent sounds from the ancient indigenous Japanese language. 神風 would have been pronounced 'shimpu' (v. shénfēng in Mandarin and shinpoong in Korean) in the term shimpu-tai ('tai' is 'unit') by an IJN officer, but probably as the indigenous Japanese word 'kamikaze' by an average citizen. The literal meaning of those Chinese characters is 'divine' and 'wind' respectively.

Joe

 

[steve51]

JoeB,
Thanks for the links and your analysis. As you suggest, there may be some confusion between sorties launched and returns. I just noticed that I havn't given the source used in the book I have. The footnote to the sortie numbers gives " U S Strategic Bombing Survey (Pacific) page 328. The author also mentions that numbers vary from source to source.

 

[VBF-13]

These threads tend to wander so maybe I'll just bore everyone by recapping what I've said and leaving it at that. Initially I was musing about the relative effectiveness of a Kamikaze attack vs a bomb, and I speculated that the plane would be travelling at maybe200-300 mph at point of impact. It was suggested that this was way conservative as the various marks of Zero had maximum dive speeds of 400 mph plus so that would be a more logical figure. In response I noted that the zero was notorious for becomming unresponsive at high speed like this and referred to a kamikaze training maual that specifically cautioned against overspeeding in cost of reduced control. But - it was countered - this was a general instruction that did not necescarily refer to the zero, which could be controlled adequately for the task via the rudder and elevators, which were not so prone as the airelons to stiffen up. Fair enough, but then came more evidence in the form of kamikaze training material which recommended that fighter (a catagory that certainly does include the zero) should aim to hit the target at 270 mph, pretty much in line with my guestimate. All of which really leaves us with only two suggestions in support of the idea that kamakazes fighters routinely hit their target at close to their maximum dive speed.

1/ the Instructions were meant for newbies - the shortcommings of the zero in a dive were no so great that an experienced pilot could not overcome them and dive into his target at much higher speeds. Well, even if we accept this, my understanding is that the great majority of kamikazes were NOT experienced pilots an thus would have maximised their chances of a hit by following the instuctions of their trainers, who "gave careful consideration' the best manner to execute an attack - and these instructions recommended an attack speed of about 270mph.

2/ training notwithstanding, many inexperienced pilots would have forgotten what they had been told and just gone in as fast as possible anyway. Okay - if we accept that some pilot s did digress from their carefully considered training surely they would have decreased their chances of hitting the target and therefore have been underrepresented in hits on allied ships?

So, in summary;

The great majority of kamikaze plots had very limited flight experience. The 'carefully considered' training material directed at these pilots cautioned against overspeeding due to the cy of the aircraft controls stiffening up and this advice did not include an exception for the zero, an aircraft well known for this tendancy. It also recommends an attck speed of about 270mph for fighter. Unless the triners got it wrong and the inexperienced pilot knew better, I think all this is pretty good evidence for my assertion that the majority of impact by kamikazes probably occurred in the 200-300 mph range.

Cobber, I wouldn't put it that you're boring me, but I am at somewhat of a loss as to where you're going with this, especially after what RCA just posted. I'm saying it's pretty evident from those two recommended approaches that these pilots were hardly dive bombing but were rather peeling-off at the start at shallower angles and at least attempting to sweep into their targets. That's a much slower approach speed, obviously, than in a typical 60 degree dive. It's easier to manage, too. The pilots who for whatever reasons deviated from the recommended approaches, if they were the less-experienced pilots, they probably encountered trouble, while, if they were the earlier pilots, it makes sense they probably fared better. In the horizontal attacks, if you'll notice, these aircraft went barreling into their targets at breakneck speeds once they got to around 700 meters and leveled-off at 20 meters above the water. Their purpose at that point was to pour on the coals to collide at the greatest possible speed (see the "Remarks," horizontal collision data). Those were momentum-collisions, for the most part. In the dive attacks their optimal momentum was cut short for the 10-15 degree angles they were aiming at completing their collisions at. As such, if you'll also notice, those aircraft finished-off at slower speeds.

Now, hell, I don't know where I'm going with this...

Actually, though, I think I'm just trying to point out, the speeds are right there in that data RCA posted. When these pilots freaked out (and, I'm sure, a certain percentage of them did), well, anything goes. As for the ones who were able to hang in there, here in that data are the predicted speeds of the various aircraft in the two recommended approches.

 

[CobberKane]

Cobber, I wouldn't put it that you're boring me, but I am at somewhat of a loss as to where you're going with this, especially after what RCA just posted. I'm saying it's pretty evident from those two recommended approaches that these pilots were hardly dive bombing but were rather peeling-off at the start at shallower angles and at least attempting to sweep into their targets. That's a much slower approach speed, obviously, than in a typical 60 degree dive. It's easier to manage, too. The pilots who for whatever reasons deviated from the recommended approaches, if they were the less-experienced pilots, they probably encountered trouble, while, if they were the earlier pilots, it makes sense they probably fared better. In the horizontal attacks, if you'll notice, these aircraft went barreling into their targets at breakneck speeds once they got to around 700 meters and leveled-off at 20 meters above the water. Their purpose at that point was to pour on the coals to collide at the greatest possible speed (see the "Remarks," horizontal collision data). Those were momentum-collisions, for the most part. In the dive attacks their optimal momentum was cut short for the 10-15 degree angles they were aiming at completing their collisions at. As such, if you'll also notice, those aircraft finished-off at slower speeds.

Now, hell, I don't know where I'm going with this...

Actually, though, I think I'm just trying to point out, the speeds are right there in that data RCA posted. When these pilots freaked out (and, I'm sure, a certain percentage of them did), well, anything goes. As for the ones who were able to hang in there, here in that data are the predicted speeds of the various aircraft in the two recommended approches.

Ahah! You have fallen into my fiendish trap and emulated my waffle and and meandering! (pause for diabolical laughter)
Seriously, I was just summarising my argument as to why I believed the majority of Kamikazes probably came in at 200-300 mph, well below the maximum dive speed of a zero (which were, it seems the most numerous type used in these attacks). A couple of contributors are sticking to higher figures, I think. I certainly cant disprove the proposition that some allied ships were hit by kamikazes travelling at much higher velocities, I
just think it would be unusual. Then again, I can't disprove the proposition that some allied ships were hit by death rays from Mars - I just think it would be that much more unusual.
Oh well, it's a dry argument and there's a beer in the frigdge. See you later, all...

 

[tyrodtom]

I noticed one of those sites tell of a aircraft that came from straight above a picket ship, but in a spiral.
No gun could track him for very long, then a gun on the other side of the ship would have to start firing, and so on all the way down. Plus reloading the guns were harder when they were shooting straight up.
A very hard to counter attack, but one that could only be done by a skilled pilot.

IMO the maneal was for the inexperienced pilots, the veterans could think of their own way.

 

[VBF-13]

Ahah! You have fallen into my fiendish trap and emulated my waffle and and meandering! (pause for diabolical laughter)

You fiend!

Seriously, I was just summarising my argument as to why I believed the majority of Kamikazes probably came in at 200-300 mph, well below the maximum dive speed of a zero (which were, it seems the most numerous type used in these attacks). A couple of contributors are sticking to higher figures, I think. I certainly cant disprove the proposition that some allied ships were hit by kamikazes travelling at much higher velocities, I
just think it would be unusual. Then again, I can't disprove the proposition that some allied ships were hit by death rays from Mars - I just think it would be that much more unusual.
Oh well, it's a dry argument and there's a beer in the frigdge. See you later, all...

OK, gotcha. Maybe the Curiosity rover will dig up some evidence to support at least that Martian proposition so we won't have to start debating that.

 

[VBF-13]

I noticed one of those sites tell of a aircraft that came from straight above a picket ship, but in a spiral.
No gun could track him for very long, then a gun on the other side of the ship would have to start firing, and so on all the way down. Plus reloading the guns were harder when they were shooting straight up.
A very hard to counter attack, but one that could only be done by a skilled pilot.

IMO the maneal was for the inexperienced pilots, the veterans could think of their own way.

I think there's certainly enough information just at this point in this thread to support the proposition that the manual was just for the rookie pilots, if one wants to believe that. It's certainly easier to manage the approaches therein than a dive approach. But it could still just be these were simply the recommended, ideal approaches, for all the pilots, to ensure they got the most out of this different kind of bombing, i.e., collision-bombing. I didn't grasp that, at first, as I was stuck on these pilots were simulating dive-bombing. RCA's post opened my eyes to the differences between that and this kind of bombing, and now I can't close my eyes to those differences. So, I'm back on the fence on this question.

 

[stona]

If the Japanese commanders had decided that the best way to attack enemy shipping in Kamikaze attacks was that laid out in the manual then they would expect all their pilots to carry out attacks in this manner.
Generally,in military organisations,such things are not options.
Cheers
Steve

 

[FLYBOYJ]

We have lists of ships attacked by both combatants, I wonder if the Japanese kept information on pilots and their experience levels that went off on kamikaze missions? JoeB?

 

[VBF-13]

Let's all just make an effort to get our heads around the uniqueness of a manual of this nature. This is the Japanese Army's collision-bombing tactics. It's something unique in that there really isn't any precedent for it. It's the ideal, recommended approaches these pilots were trained to emulate to maximize the effectiveness of their attacks. It's a tactical manual specific to collision-bombing just the same as there are tactical manuals specific to torpedo-bombing, dive-bombing, and fighter-bombing. It's no different than any of those are different among themselves.

 

[steve51]

Does anyone know if the Soviets ever issued a manual for air to air ramming? It wouldn't surprise me if they had, given the frequency that the tactic was used and assuming higher command approved of the practice. Some pilots reportedly performed a ramming more than once.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

And don't forget this - I bet there "would have" been a manual for ramming.

"The plan was simple: fly above enemy aircraft, then enter a high-speed dive and collide with an enemy's wing or vertical stabilizer. The XP-79B was designed to survive because of the heavily reinforced leading edges on the wings."