Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.VBF-13,According to the book, " Kamikazes, Corsairs, and Picket Ships" , at Okinawa the Japanese flew 2750 kamikaze sorties
This was posted earlier, quite a bit lower number:VBF-13,
According to the book, " Kamikazes, Corsairs, and Picket Ships" , at Okinawa the Japanese flew 2750 kamikaze sorties and over 3700 conventional sorties.
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.
At Okinawa I count seven destroyers, one escort destroyer, and three minesweepers, all lost due to air assaults. My source, Battle Stations! (1946).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.
Here's a couple of more things I found, for Navy shimpu-tai/kamikaze* attacks.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.
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.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.
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...
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.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.