Kamikaze: Ever had a chance of success?

[cherry blossom]

Yeah, okay I understand, and fair enough. But the japanese never referred officially to their Special Attack Corps as "kamikazes". They were popularised in the west by that name, and it may even have been used in their local popular press. But I am yet to find any evidence of that. If you want to be a bit pedantic , it should really should be shown as two separate words ie Kami Kaze and not the bastardised westernised version of 'kamikaze", since in japanese language the term is a combination of two words. of course, in the post war, it probably crept into even Japanese language as a new word, because of the gradual westernization of the country and the popularization of the supreme saacrifices made by these men.

I dont think we as observers have the moral right to show such disrespect .......they were our mortal enemeies, but they fought more bravely that just about any other group of warriors in human history....

I don't feel that use of the word Kamikaze shows any racial disrespect. Several Japanese sources use the term in their official English translations such as at ???????? where it is written at the bottom of the page. Those sources may themselves show some disrespect for the leaders of Imperial Japan but not for the pilots involved. An example might be Emiko Ohnuki-Tierney Kamikaze Diaries: Reflections of Japanese Student Soldiers by Emiko Ohnuki-Tierney, an excerpt and Kamikaze, Cherry Blossoms, and Nationalisms: The Militarization of Aesthetics in Japanese History, Ohnuki-Tierney. When Japanese books are translated into English, Kamikaze is often used in the translations presumably with the approval of the Japanese authors as in "Thunder Gods: The Kamikaze Pilots Tell Their Story" by Naito, Hatsuho; Ichikawa, Mayumi Thunder Gods: The Kamikaze Pilots Tell Their Story by Naito, Hatsuho by Naito, Hatsuho; Ichikawa, Mayumi: Kodansha Amer Inc 1989-05-01 9780870119095 Hardcover - Anaco Books.

 

[Dogwalker]

it should really should be shown as two separate words ie Kami Kaze and not the bastardised westernised version of 'kamikaze", since in japanese language the term is a combination of two words.

Nope. Many Japanese, as well as Chinese, words are the combination of two kanji. Many, if not the major part, of the Japanese personal names are composed that way. To name some other Japanese terms popular in the west composed that way: "yakuza" (three kanji), "ronin" (two), "karate" (two), and any martial arts or philosophy that ends with "do" (Bushido, Aikido, ecc...), but they are translitterated in western languages as one words terms, from before WWII, by Japanese authors themself.

 

[Dogwalker]

The same term "Blitzkrieg" was not invented by Germans (it was first used by British press) , and is composed by two words. Hovever, the term is not grammatically incorrect, and is not offensive, even if Hitler disliked it.
The fact is that nothing as a foreign word is capable to explicate fully the meaning of a new thing. It was way more aesy to say "kamikaze" than "Japanese suicide pilots that crash on our ships with aircrafts full of explosive", and "blitzkrieg" than "tactical use of mechanized units developed by the Germans in the '30s".

 

[Civettone]

Similar to banzai. A Japanese word taken out of context and now generally used in the derived meaning. But then again, a lot of our words have an etymological meaning far removed from the current meaning.


Kris

 

[parsifal]

well, thats what I get when I dont speak the language very well. Tough love, but thanks for the correction just the same.
What is certain however, is that the japanese did not officially refer to their suicide units as Kamikazes. And rememeber, this all stems from the claim that kamikazs and 'special attack corps' were somehow different. There is no such distinction

 

[parsifal]

The same term "Blitzkrieg" was not invented by Germans (it was first used by British press) , and is composed by two words. Hovever, the term is not grammatically incorrect, and is not offensive, even if Hitler disliked it

.

Its origins for the west are believed to have originated from an italian journalist and first appeared just after Poland. May well have been coined in the british press as well. ther is some doubt as to the origins . However, the term had already made an appearance as early as 1935, in a German military periodical Deutsche Wehr (German Defense), in connection to quick or lightning warfare. As a concept, however, "blitzkrieg" is a bit of a myth anyway, since it was never an officially a formalised or codified military doctrine.

Senior officers of the Wehrmacht, including Kurt Student, Franz Halder and Johann Adolf von Kielmansegg, dispute that the blitzkrieg was ever an organized military concept and most certainly it was never a military tradition attracting tradional values or respect as such. Many contemporary German officers instead asserted that what many regarded as the blitzkrieg was nothing more than "ad hoc solutions that simply popped out of the prevailing situation" (Johann Adolf von Kielmansegg) and ideas that "naturally emerged from the existing circumstances" (Kurt Student) as a response to operational challenges.

German historian Frieser summarized the blitzkrieg as "simply the result of German commanders blending the latest technology in the most beneficial way with the traditional military principles and employing the right units in the right place at the right time" on the operational level of warfare, and that it was in no way a brand-new military doctrine or concept

The origins of the term blitzkrieg are obscure. It was never used in the title of a military doctrine or handbook of the German army or air force. It was rarely used in the German military press before 1939. There are only two military articles from the 1930s in which it is employed. Neither article advocates any radically new military doctrine or approach to war. Both use the term simply to mean a swift strategic knockout.

Another relatively early use of the term in a German-language work was in a book by Fritz Sternberg, a Jewish Marxist political economist who was a refugee from the Third Reich. Entitled Die Deutsche Kriegsstärke (German War Strength), it was published in Paris in 1939. It had been preceded by an English-language edition of 1938 called Germany and a Lightning War. The German edition uses the term blitzkrieg. The book's argument is that Germany is not prepared economically for a long war but might win a lightning war. It does not treat in any detail operational and tactical matters, and does not suggest that the German armed forces have evolved a radically new operational method. It offers scant clues as to how German lightning victories might be won.

Regardless, from the german perspective (or at least from Hitlers pespective, it was an incorrect term and rather offensive...though because it riled hitler, I really dont care on that score...

Hitler, in a speech in November 1941, said "I have never used the word Blitzkrieg, because it is a very silly word", and it seems even at the beginning of 1942 he dismissed it as 'Italian phraseology'

Given that "Blitzkrieg" is really a bit of a myth, its hard for anybody to argue that using a new term to describe an imaginary doctrine is something offensive.

The fact is that nothing as a foreign word is capable to explicate fully the meaning of a new thing. It was way more aesy to say "kamikaze" than "Japanese suicide pilots that crash on our ships with aircrafts full of explosive", and "blitzkrieg" than "tactical use of mechanized units developed by the Germans in the '30s"

No one is suggesting that you do. Officially the 'Kamikazes' were referred to as Shinpu tokubetsu kogeki tai. A better more contemporary description for Blitzkrieg might be Kesselschlacht. There was another name also given to it by Guderian, but i forget what it was.

Its just that we westerners really like to denigrate things that are foreign, and one way we do that is by calling it by a differnt name, which has inferred in it some kind of insult. It goes back to our days in the school yard. You know, the kid with the red hair might be blue or carrot top, the tall kid might be 'stretch' or 'tiny', the black kid as a boong or ******. Its not offensive to the person saying it....they might use it as a term of endearment or even think that its respectful or funny. but for the person on the receiving end, it is usually taken as an insult. they might try and hide it, or not respond, but its still an insult that has been done.

And just to reiterate.....most definately, there is no difference between 'special suicide attack corps" and kamikaze.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

Chance of success? No.

Just causing some hurt to the enemy by any means possible.

- Ivan.

 

[vikingBerserker]

Not without control of the air.

 

[Civettone]

All aircraft go thru handling changes at different speeds, you can't simulate it with ground training, or a gentle flight in a glider.
Just from my limited flight experience, some aircraft require a lot of trim changes with different speeds. and i'm just talking about regular flying.

How do you explain the V1? High speed, unmanned, no trimming whatsoever. Managed to fly straight and with reasonable accuracy...

Imagine there would be a guy inside to make it fly it to target even more accurately and smoothly. That's when you get the Baika and Ohka.

Kris

 

[Dogwalker]

.No one is suggesting that you do. Officially the 'Kamikazes' were referred to as Shinpu tokubetsu kogeki tai.

Yeah. I can imagine a scout on a US ship, seeing a small Japanese fighter approaching, shouting in the intercom: "Shinpu tokubetsu kogeki tai!!"
Almost better: "A Japanese suicide pilot is going to crash on our ship with an aircraft full of explosive!!" (pity that, at that point, the plane has already arrived).

When I said: "nothing as a foreign word" I intend "one word". You can describe everithing with a periphrasis.
But the words of one language are already "occupied", already have their meaning. So, a new meaning requires a new word. That often is taken from a foreign language.
An example is the meaning given in the west to the terms "troika", or "kanban".
Once again, there is nothing offensive in the term "kamikaze". Whatever the habits of Westerners about the guys with red hair are.

 

[swampyankee]

WWII era Kamikaze appear normal compared to these lunatics.
Counter-Terrorism: Butt Bombs A Bust

Anecdote time: My father served in the USN during WW2, on PT boats, mostly around Borneo and in the Philippines. While in Borneo, one of his shipmates (boatmates?) was visiting an Australian Army encampment. While there, a Japanese soldier walked up to the encampment showing that he was going to surrender. One of the Australian soldiers being visited with grabbed his rifle and shot him. My father's shipmate was rather aghast, after which the Australian told him to take a look: the Japanese soldier was wired with explosives: he was a suicide bomber. (note that my father was telling me this on his death bed, almost sixty years after the events would have taken place.)

 

[tyrodtom]

How do you explain the V1? High speed, unmanned, no trimming whatsoever. Managed to fly straight and with reasonable accuracy...

Imagine there would be a guy inside to make it fly it to target even more accurately and smoothly. That's when you get the Baika and Ohka.

Kris

The V1 only flew at one speed , no trimming necessary. Except during it's terminal dive, then it went wherever gravity and chance took it. It was sometimes accurate enough to hit London, not exactly a point target.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

How do you explain the V1? High speed, unmanned, no trimming whatsoever. Managed to fly straight and with reasonable accuracy...

Imagine there would be a guy inside to make it fly it to target even more accurately and smoothly. That's when you get the Baika and Ohka.

Kris

The V-1 was flying on an autopilot which is actually more accurate then any pilot could fly. There is a tendency to over correct when opposing forces are placed on an aircraft being flown by hand. That overcorrecting intensifies at higher speeds thus the necessity for continual trim. The auto pilot wont over correct opposing forces, it just applies the correct inputs just to keep the aircraft on course.

 

[Civettone]

The V1 only flew at one speed , no trimming necessary. Except during it's terminal dive, then it went wherever gravity and chance took it. It was sometimes accurate enough to hit London, not exactly a point target.

Exactly my point. While the Baika/Ohka would fly straight and at continuous speed, no trimming is needed. Not on the V1 and as such not on these kamikaze fighters.
In its final descent, it would become more difficult, but not enough to lose control over the aircraft. This is also shown by the principle of German Mistel and Reichenberg aircraft. These would be released - without pilot - in the dive. Germans engineers believed it would fly in a stable and controlled fashion.

The V-1 was flying on an autopilot which is actually more accurate then any pilot could fly. There is a tendency to over correct when opposing forces are placed on an aircraft being flown by hand. That overcorrecting intensifies at higher speeds thus the necessity for continual trim. The auto pilot wont over correct opposing forces, it just applies the correct inputs just to keep the aircraft on course.

The V1 did not have trim tabs.

Kris

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The V1 did not have trim tabs.

Kris

I know

It didn't need them - it didn't have human inputs that would either over correct for control inbalances or become fatigued when applying continual stick forces for inbalances.

 

[tyrodtom]

The Baka-Ohka never flew at a constant speed. It was in a glide until it chose a target, then could fire all three solid fuel rockets at once to boost it's terminal dive speed, or it could fire them one at a time.
Glide, dive, or dive with one to three rockets thrusting. That doesn't sound like a formula for a constant speed to me.

 

[swampyankee]

All aircraft before FBW were either stable or only very slightly unstable with regards to small disturbances. Indeed, even the primitive autopilot present in the V-1 was probably not able to cope with anything beyond very slightly unstable. Since the V-1 could be flown by a human pilot -- there was a manned version (or womanned; I think the first pilot of one was Hanna Reitsch), it was probably a stable aircraft. Trim tabs are not present for dealing with short-term disturbances: they do not react quickly, as anyone who has heard of somebody trying to land an aircraft by using the trim tabs.

Incidentally, it is true that even relatively primitive autopilots, like the ones on the 707s and DC-8s, could fly more efficiently than human pilots.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

All aircraft before FBW were either stable or only very slightly unstable with regards to small disturbances. Indeed, even the primitive autopilot present in the V-1 was probably not able to cope with anything beyond very slightly unstable. Since the V-1 could be flown by a human pilot -- there was a manned version (or womanned; I think the first pilot of one was Hanna Reitsch), it was probably a stable aircraft.

Stable enough to be flown by an experienced test pilot.

Trim tabs are not present for dealing with short-term disturbances: they do not react quickly, as anyone who has heard of somebody trying to land an aircraft by using the trim tabs.

There you're wrong. Trim tabs stabilize an aircraft in to a desired attitude without the need for the pilot to constantly apply a control force. If a "short-term disturbance" is causing you to gain or loose +/- 500 from a planned cruising altitude, you bet you're gonna use them and they do react quickly (I don't know if you're a pilot of not). I've flown straight tailed Cessna 150s and 172s with mechanical flaps and I have made both types of aircraft land quite safely with just the use of trim (also adjusting power when on final). Jumping up a bit, I've also flown several jets, trim tabs work almost immediately and some are electrically driven. There have been countless reports of aircraft losing elevator control and they were safely landed using elevator trim and careful power management.

BTW - If I'm not mistaken I believe that FAR Part 23 single engine aircraft have to demonstrate emergency landings without elevators to receive a type certificate.

In a faster moving aircraft or jet, you are continually trimming the aircraft when "flying by hand."

 

[Civettone]

Actually, I just noticed that the Ohka does not have trim tabs either. So I guess our entire discussion was rather superfluous (though interesting).

The Baka-Ohka never flew at a constant speed. It was in a glide until it chose a target, then could fire all three solid fuel rockets at once to boost it's terminal dive speed, or it could fire them one at a time.
Glide, dive, or dive with one to three rockets thrusting. That doesn't sound like a formula for a constant speed to me.

Of course, but all this time, I have been talking about a pulsejet engined Baika or Baka/Ohka. The former was probably derived from the Fi 103R.

Kris

 

[tyrodtom]

The pulsejet version of the Ohka was only a proposal, it was never built. So discussing it's possible handling is pointless.
A thermojet ( a jet with a gasoline engine powering the inlet turbine) version of the Ohka was tested, also never reached production.
And a enlarged Ohka with a turbojet engine, same engine that powered the Kikka, was proposed. I don't know if it ever flew or not.