Kamikaze: Ever had a chance of success?

[VBF-13]

Not tooting my own horn - I've flown over 1000mph. I've dove an aircraft in excess of 450 knots; These were in aircraft designed and built a lot better than the Okha...

Based on MY experience, putting a low time pilot in an Okha and expecting them to hit a naval target at 500 knots while getting shot at is a gamble only a desperate combatant would undertake and it is not an effective weapon platform.

BTW, I'm also a flight instructor so I have "a little" experience on how a low time pilot flies...

Joe, this from The Divine Wind...

"In a moment of sudden emergency it is not so difficult to make up one's mind to die. But it must have been agony for the young men who were chosen to train and study for the Ohka special attacks, because it was more than six months after training started before even the first of them got a chance to die in battle. They were carefully selected from throughout the air force, and all were well qualified. These men were especially well prepared during their long training period. They proved to be just as dependable and capable about their duty as the kamikaze pilots who gave their lives in the Philippines."

 

[tyrodtom]

I checked Blossoms in the Wind out of the library today and read again some of the chapters about the Okha pilot training.
Tokuro Takei was in Basic flight training Cycle 38, on graduation from basic flight training he volunteered for the Ohka.
His training consisted of instruction in dive techniques in a 2 place Zero, and 1 (one) flight in the glider version of a Ohka, no powered Okha flights, no dives.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Joe, this from The Divine Wind...

"In a moment of sudden emergency it is not so difficult to make up one's mind to die. But it must have been agony for the young men who were chosen to train and study for the Ohka special attacks, because it was more than six months after training started before even the first of them got a chance to die in battle. They were carefully selected from throughout the air force, and all were well qualified. These men were especially well prepared during their long training period. They proved to be just as dependable and capable about their duty as the kamikaze pilots who gave their lives in the Philippines."

"Well Qualified." So unlike recip mission, these guys had some experience, a slight game changer, so throw in everything else and you're still looking at a pretty desperate weapons platform.

 

[tyrodtom]

Plus at that time, late 44, in Japanese flight training , after solo, you might share a 2 place aircraft with another student, both would get the time counted as solo hrs for the full duration of the flight. So the hours quoted as flight time at the end of basic flight training might not reflect the actual flight time of each student.
And so far I've found nothing that says how many hours the average student had at the end of basic flight training, at that time.

 

[Civettone]

At 10 miles and 10,000 ft even a flat top is going to be a speck on the ocean and very hard to accurately aim at. ... That novice now only has a few seconds to correct the aim, as a novice myself I have enough trouble hitting a 2500 ft long runway which luckily for me doesnt move or throw supersonic metal at me and I am only doing 60mph not 500mph.

You do not need to land on that carrier. You need to hit it or crash just in front of it.
Hundreds of poorly trained kamikaze pilots managed to hit their targets, many hundreds failed. They all had to fly aircraft with heavy piston engines, trying to keep it under control while going over 300 mph. I am sure a jet driven Ohka or Baika would be able to get near a 200 m long target.
Pilots for the Ohka/Baika would have limited training, but at least they would not need to learn how to land or dogfight. They would need a very purpose orientated training, emphasis on aircraft handling and aiming

I checked Blossoms in the Wind out of the library today and read again some of the chapters about the Okha pilot training.
Tokuro Takei was in Basic flight training Cycle 38, on graduation from basic flight training he volunteered for the Ohka.
His training consisted of instruction in dive techniques in a 2 place Zero, and 1 (one) flight in the glider version of a Ohka, no powered Okha flights, no dives.

It seems I looked at the wrong number. It came from ISBN 4-06-185016-4. Some Japanese book from 1991, from page 400-410. I have no idea which book that is

Does it mention Nagano Kazutoshi of the 721th squadron? He is the one who is supposed to have said the Ohka is more manoeuvrable than the Zero?
Kris

 

[tyrodtom]

A A6M2 Zero weighted 5300 lbs and had 241 sq ft of wing area.
the Ohka weighted 4700 lbs and had 64 sq ft of wing area, how could it be remotely as maneuverable as a Zero ???

 

[Civettone]

I don't know. Manouevrable is a very broad term. Maybe he meant the roll rate, maybe he meant its handling?? In any case, there is more to it than simply wing loading.


Kris

 

[fastmongrel]

You do not need to land on that carrier. You need to hit it or crash just in front of it.

It needs to be a very near miss USN carriers and other major vessels had very good torpedo defence and were well known to be tough resilient and hard to sink or even damage with a single near miss. I dont know how the warhead was fused but if it was a contact fuse it might blow when it hits the water. To get under the keel of a big ship to do big damage it would need to be a slight delay.

Hundreds of poorly trained kamikaze pilots managed to hit their targets, many hundreds failed. They all had to fly aircraft with heavy piston engines, trying to keep it under control while going over 300 mph. I am sure a jet driven Ohka or Baika would be able to get near a 200 m long target.

500mph is a whole different ball game to 300mph from 10 miles out your going to have approx 120 secs to the target, at 500mph you have approx 75 secs

Pilots for the Ohka/Baika would have limited training, but at least they would not need to learn how to land or dogfight. They would need a very purpose orientated training, emphasis on aircraft handling and aiming

Agreed but still a very poor return on the time and money invested

 

[FLYBOYJ]

You do not need to land on that carrier. You need to hit it or crash just in front of it.
Hundreds of poorly trained kamikaze pilots managed to hit their targets, many hundreds failed.

Do you have numbers of how many of the more experienced kamikazes pilots who hit their targets as opposed to the minimally trained ones? I'd bet dollars to donuts those with minimal training wound up as a score card on the side of an F6F.

They all had to fly aircraft with heavy piston engines, trying to keep it under control while going over 300 mph. I am sure a jet driven Ohka or Baika would be able to get near a 200 m long target.

Providing the mother ship didn't get shot down first.

Pilots for the Ohka/Baika would have limited training, but at least they would not need to learn how to land or dogfight. They would need a very purpose orientated training, emphasis on aircraft handling and aiming

And again, it's not as easy as you think, especially at terminal speeds while getting shot at. I'll put my own experience out there to say you're wrong!

It seems I looked at the wrong number. It came from ISBN 4-06-185016-4. Some Japanese book from 1991, from page 400-410. I have no idea which book that is

Does it mention Nagano Kazutoshi of the 721th squadron? He is the one who is supposed to have said the Ohka is more manoeuvrable than the Zero?
Kris

If it was over 280mph I'd believe it (NOT!), but I'll call BS on that statement regardless where it came from. The Zero had a wing loading of 22 pounds - the Okha, over 73!!!!!

 

[swampyankee]

An interesting datum: aircrew in kamikaze squadrons had lower casualty rates than those in heavy bomber squadrons in Europe. Obviously, the reason is that relatively few of the kamikaze aircrew went on "missions."

You've got to wonder at target selection skills of some of the pilots: at least one PT boat was destroyed by "special attack," which strikes me as a bit less than brilliant. As for the level of training needed by kamikaze pilots? Three of the four attacks on Sept 11, 2001 succeeded, albeit with no opposition, against immobile targets, and the modern autopilots: far less training was required than that for a pilot who would be expected to bring his plane back. A lot of the kamikaze pilots flying conventional aircraft were shot down (radar + CAP was probably more important than AAA), and the Okha was probably quite difficult to control, especially during the phase shortly after it was dropped from its launch aircraft (many of which would probably have fallen to radar + CAP).

eta: iirc term "kamikaze" harkened back to First Battle of Hakata Bay, when a typhoon struck the fleet of the Mongol invaders. While I'm sure that there were US academics sufficiently familiar with Japanese and Mongol history to be aware of divine wind, it's quite unlikely more than a few USN officers, petty officers, or non-rated personnel had any clue. The term was probably passed to the US via Japanese propaganda broadcasts.

 

[Shortround6]

Considering the operational history is was almost as suicidal for the carrier (mother) aircraft as it was for the Ohka itself.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

In the book Rocketing Into the Future: The History and Technology of Rocket Planes By Michel van Pelt, there's a good narrative about the first powered Okha flight undertaken by Nagano Kazutoshi in a trainer version. There were wing mounted rockets on this model tested (the trainer version) and it also had a water ballast tank.

Rocketing Into the Future: The History and Technology of Rocket Planes - Michel van Pelt - Google Books

 

[parsifal]

According to that source,the following attacks were made with the okha (date/numbersof attacks/numbers of hits/ships sunk)

21 Mar:16/0/0
1 Apr: 6/1+3(?)/0
11 Apr: 9/4/1
14 apr:7/0/0
16 Apr: 6/0/0
28 Apr; 4/0/0
4 May:7/2/0
11 May:4/1/1
25 May:11/0/0
22 June:6/0/0


On that basis, the Okha 76/11/2

Compare that to the overall average of 2550/448/47
For the overall effort, there was a 17.6% chance of hitting a target, and a 1.8% chance of sinking a ship. For the Okhas 14.4% chanceof hitting a ship, but a 2.5% chance of sinking it. An Okha was only 80% as likley to hit something as other aircraft, but if it did hit, it was twice as likley to sink itand

 

[Civettone]

It needs to be a very near miss USN carriers and other major vessels had very good torpedo defence and were well known to be tough resilient and hard to sink or even damage with a single near miss. I dont know how the warhead was fused but if it was a contact fuse it might blow when it hits the water. To get under the keel of a big ship to do big damage it would need to be a slight delay.

Yes, that is correct. The Ohka was meant to hit the target just below the waterline thereby creating a water bubble which would crack open the hull.

500mph is a whole different ball game to 300mph from 10 miles out your going to have approx 120 secs to the target, at 500mph you have approx 75 secs

Those are 75 loooong seconds. In fact, I think, the longer time, the more chance you will miss the target as you will be blown out of the sky. All in all, the speed will improve accuracy!

Agreed but still a very poor return on the time and money invested

But that is where you are completely wrong ! Kamikazes were a very good return on the time and money. They achieved more than what fully trained combat pilots in torpedo bombers were able to sink. (at least in 1944/1945)

Do you have numbers of how many of the more experienced kamikazes pilots who hit their targets as opposed to the minimally trained ones? I'd bet dollars to donuts those with minimal training wound up as a score card on the side of an F6F.

Nobody does. I also agree that the better pilots would have a bigger chance of avoiding the American fighters. I also think they would be better at hitting the target. But what would the ratio be? We will never know!
I also wonder if there are figures on how many kamikazes missed their target, unhindered by American AA fire? Now that would be interesting for this discussion !

If it was over 280mph I'd believe it (NOT!), but I'll call BS on that statement regardless where it came from. The Zero had a wing loading of 22 pounds - the Okha, over 73!!!!!

Like I said in my previous post, manoeuvrability is much more than wing loading! It is a matter of interpretation. But in any case, it seems to me that the Ohka was not just a fly-straight-ahead-rocket

According to that source,the following attacks were made with the okha (date/numbersof attacks/numbers of hits/ships sunk)

21 Mar:16/0/0
1 Apr: 6/1+3(?)/0
11 Apr: 9/4/1
14 apr:7/0/0
16 Apr: 6/0/0
28 Apr; 4/0/0
4 May:7/2/0
11 May:4/1/1
25 May:11/0/0
22 June:6/0/0


On that basis, the Okha 76/11/2

Compare that to the overall average of 2550/448/47
For the overall effort, there was a 17.6% chance of hitting a target, and a 1.8% chance of sinking a ship. For the Okhas 14.4% chanceof hitting a ship, but a 2.5% chance of sinking it. An Okha was only 80% as likley to hit something as other aircraft, but if it did hit, it was twice as likley to sink itand

Awesome stuff Parsifal ! Thanks for the effort !
We have to take into consideration that most Ohkas were shot down together with the mother ship. If we discount that, we would probably see that the chances of hitting a target would have increased three t four times, and so would the number of kills! This would mean that 1 out of 10 Ohkas would sink a ship. Of course it would require a turbo/pulsejet or a ground based version.

Kris

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Nobody does. I also agree that the better pilots would have a bigger chance of avoiding the American fighters. I also think they would be better at hitting the target. But what would the ratio be? We will never know!

All we have is how many were launched and how many actually hit their targets, the attrition rate is horrible!

Like I said in my previous post, manoeuvrability is much more than wing loading! It is a matter of interpretation. But in any case, it seems to me that the Ohka was not just a fly-straight-ahead-rocket

Wing loading is the benchmark, it starts from there. Anything with a 72 lb per sq in wing loading will certainly not maneuver well, at least compared with a zero. If Bill (Drangondog) sees this I'm sure he'll come with the match to show the Ohka maneuvered like a barn door!

Those are 75 loooong seconds. In fact, I think, the longer time, the more chance you will miss the target as you will be blown out of the sky. All in all, the speed will improve accuracy!

Tell me, why do you think that?

If we discount that, we would probably see that the chances of hitting a target would have increased three t four times, and so would the number of kills! This would mean that 1 out of 10 Ohkas would sink a ship. Of course it would require a turbo/pulsejet or a ground based version.

Kris

Would have, could have, should have - sorry Kris, you're stretching it a little - just that alone shows the flawed concept of the Okha. For it to have been successful the Japanese would have needed thousands of aircraft AND pilots to immediately overwhelm US defenses, and if they had thousands of extra pilots in reserve and the resources to build thousands of aircraft, why send them on suicide missions?

Cripes, if the Marines had 500 F2As at Midway they "might" have been more successful as well!

I've said it once before - if the Queen had balls she'd be the king!

 

[Jenisch]

They say the Ohka was a rocket powered glider (indeed, it should glide for a time before the rockets were activated). The problem is that with those tiny wings it would be offensive to call it a glider. =/

 

[Civettone]

Wing loading is the benchmark, it starts from there. Anything with a 72 lb per sq in wing loading will certainly not maneuver well, at least compared with a zero. If Bill (Drangondog) sees this I'm sure he'll come with the match to show the Ohka maneuvered like a barn door!

There are several fighter aircraft with high wing loading, which were manoeuvrable! For instance, the Bf 109 was very manoeuvrable. But again, it depends how you define this. Surely, the Bf 109 could not turn with a Zero, but it turned better than most ww2 fighter aircraft. Manoeuvrability is also crisp controls and roll rate.

Tell me, why do you think that?

The slower the aircraft, the more chance it will get shot down. As such, there will be less chance of it hitting a target. My guess is that this largely mitigates any advantage lower speed gives to handling.

Would have, could have, should have - sorry Kris, you're stretching it a little - just that alone shows the flawed concept of the Okha. For it to have been successful the Japanese would have needed thousands of aircraft AND pilots to immediately overwhelm US defenses, and if they had thousands of extra pilots in reserve and the resources to build thousands of aircraft, why send them on suicide missions?

I have always said that I was thinking of a long-range jet kamikaze. This topic is about what kind of kamikaze could have had a chance!
The Ohka as existed was flawed, because of the short range. It might have been useful in November 1945 when the invasion would take place, but in general, the Betty carrier was simply too vulnerable.
Second, by giving the Ohka longer range or by producing the planned pulsejet Baika, this deficiency would be gone. There is not much chance that Navy fighters will intercept jet kamikaze doing 400 mph at low altitude. Given the fact that most Ohkas were lost due to US Navy fighters, the numbers speak for themselves.
The Ohka and Baika were extremely simple and easy to produce. Together with other kamikaze measures, the US Navy could face a war of attrition, which it would ultimately lose: it could not replace ships as fast as kamikazes could destroy them.
Of course, in the end, the Japanese were going to surrender anyway due to the Soviet invasion and the A-bombs. But this does not take away that the kamikaze jet aircraft were a cost effective and thus succesful weapon.

Kris

 

[FLYBOYJ]

There are several fighter aircraft with high wing loading, which were manoeuvrable! For instance, the Bf 109 was very manoeuvrable. But again, it depends how you define this. Surely, the Bf 109 could not turn with a Zero, but it turned better than most ww2 fighter aircraft. Manoeuvrability is also crisp controls and roll rate.

Not when you have a 72 pound wing loading!!!!

The slower the aircraft, the more chance it will get shot down. As such, there will be less chance of it hitting a target. My guess is that this largely mitigates any advantage lower speed gives to handling.

Do you also realize the faster the aircraft, the more of a workload on the pilot? Read about "staying ahead of the aircraft." This applies 2x when dealing with faster moving aircraft (even if they are going on a one-way mission). Speed does mitigate risk, but with manned flight there is always another dynamic thrown into the fray...

I have always said that I was thinking of a long-range jet kamikaze. This topic is about what kind of kamikaze could have had a chance!
The Ohka as existed was flawed, because of the short range. It might have been useful in November 1945 when the invasion would take place, but in general, the Betty carrier was simply too vulnerable.

That sums it up right there...

Second, by giving the Ohka longer range or by producing the planned pulsejet Baika, this deficiency would be gone. There is not much chance that Navy fighters will intercept jet kamikaze doing 400 mph at low altitude. Given the fact that most Ohkas were lost due to US Navy fighters, the numbers speak for themselves.
The Ohka and Baika were extremely simple and easy to produce. Together with other kamikaze measures, the US Navy could face a war of attrition, which it would ultimately lose: it could not replace ships as fast as kamikazes could destroy them.

this is very wishful thinking. Again, if those resources were available, why use Kamikazes?

Of course, in the end, the Japanese were going to surrender anyway due to the Soviet invasion and the A-bombs. But this does not take away that the kamikaze jet aircraft were a cost effective and thus succesful weapon.
Kris

But they weren't - look at the actual numbers. kamikaze jet aircraft? $$$$ Better off with the rocket propelled Okha!

In the end the Japanese would have been better off launching them pilotless and hoping for the best!

 

[parsifal]

In the end the Japanese would have been better off launching them pilotless and hoping for the best!

That does pose an intersting question in itself, what were the sortie to hit rates for the German guided bombs in say Salerno/the med, controlling the bomb by RC over los. Thats about the nearest equivalent to this situation I can think of. Its not quite a level playing field, though, since air defences off salerno and over the sea in the ETO are not comparable to the air defences over TF 58

 

[Civettone]

this is very wishful thinking. Again, if those resources were available, why use Kamikazes?

What resources? The Ohka required very few materials, less fuel and hardly any fully trained pilots. This is impossible with the standard Kates, Nates and Betties.
Kamikazes were the best option for the Japanese: plenty of fanatics willing to give their lives, thereby mitigating Japan's technological inferiority. Conversely, American sailers were petrified of the Japanese kamikazes. An American invasion in November 1945 would have seen a carnage, never before seen in American history. They were preparing hundreds and hundreds of suicide bombers, subs and torpedo boats. Although of course, the outcome would be the same.

Kris