What if the U.S. and the USAAF had paid attention?

[nuuumannn]

then why not fill the aircraft with explosive and aim it at the target?

Because in a war of attrition you're never going to win if you are wasting resources like this. It's an act of desperation and the Japanese knew it, that's why they did it. The very name, Kamikaze refers back to an unwinnable situation where the Divine Wind (not a man-made action, mind) saved Japan from the Mongol fleet. Yes, for Japanese it's understandable because of their culture, but changing the balance of power and swinging the war in Japan's favour? Next to impossible.

Either way you lose the pilot and aircraft

Precisely why it's not a good idea. As for the effectiveness, it's a bee with one sting, a bomber can be recovered and retasked, a Kamikaze can't, even if he fails in his objective. Next to the successes, I'd like to see the failure rate too, those shot down and those who missed their targets and died trying. I wouldn't know where to look or whether such a thing has been collated.

The concept is revered with almost mythical status in Japan today, with museums around the country, notably the Yasukuni Shrine, but also the Chiran Peace Museum near Kagoshima (the last surviving Ki-84 is there) paying homage to it, which is spiritually comforting for those who lost loved ones. But an effective deployable tactic that's gonna reverse the outcome? Not at all.

 

[Schweik]

And yet, as a tactic, it is still alive and strong today, as the mobile IED was basically the main weapon of ISIS / ISIL and lots of other groups fighting in the Middle East and Central Asia (also used by Taliban in Afghanistan for example). They are ghastly in concept, but also extremely effective in armored warfare when they can attack from ambush or in built up areas. Ironically, the other main new innovation is drones which could be said to be the technological 'descendants' of the various wire and radio guided weapons at the end of WW2.

 

[nuuumannn]

nd yet, as a tactic, it is still alive and strong today,

Ah yes, the suicide bomber, won't ever win a war though. Kill people in a bloody and terrifying fashion to get the attention of the opposition, guaranteed to work. Killing oneself for religious reasons is not limited to Islam or the Japanese.

 

[GrauGeist]

"Drones" actually go back to WWI, with the Kettering "Bug".

Keep in mind that the Kamikazes, for the most part, used older and war-weary types, piloted by low time volunteers.

It should also be noted that the waves of Kamikazes weren't meant to win the war, but make Allied losses untenable to the point that Japan had a position to bargain with in a negotiated peace.

I should add that one of the first Kamikaze acts of the Pacific war wasn't Japanese, it was a striken B-26 during the Battle of Midway, that nearly took out the bridge of the Akagi and Nagumo, who was awed by the act (and nearly killed in the process).

 

[nuuumannn]

It should also be noted that the waves of Kamikazes weren't meant to win the war, but make Allied losses untenable

In that case, to what end and what is the alternative? It still did not achieve its aims, nor was it ever going to. That's my point; it was an act of desperation that reflects an untenable situation. Yes, it's brutal and lots of people died and material losses were great, but it did not change the outcome, unconditional Japanese surrender.

 

[GrauGeist]

They didn't know that at the time, to be honest.

To us, it was a wasteful process, to them, it was a glorious sacrifice for the Emperor and their homeland.

Bulgarians, by the way, were known to ram Allied bombers with their fighters when they ran out of ammunition while trying to protect Sofia - some were successful, baling out before impact, some chose not to.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Kamikazes couldn't win the war, simply because 1) they couldn't stop B-29s, and 2) they couldn't stop the strangulation by submarine. Either one of those strategies could, imho, have won they war, and indeed both played a vital role.

Kamikazes could not affect either of them.

 

[Graeme]

Next to the successes, I'd like to see the failure rate too, those shot down and those who missed their targets and died trying.

Based on a 19% success rate - we have a 81% failure to hit rate?

Of those hits on ships - 8.5% were sunk (wiki).

Approximately 2,800 Kamikaze attackers sank 34 Navy ships, damaged 368 others, killed 4,900 sailors, and wounded over 4,800. Despite radar detection and cuing, airborne interception, attrition, and massive anti-aircraft barrages, 14 percent of Kamikazes survived to score a hit on a ship; nearly 8.5 percent of all ships hit by Kamikazes sank.[45]​

Kamikaze - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Graeme]

it was a glorious sacrifice for the Emperor and their homeland.

And/or cold hard logistics?
"Kill a thousand with one."

 

[nuuumannn]

I'd also tag that thread informative, Graeme, but thanks for posting those figures. It all looks a bit grim and fruitless. Yes, the damage done was great, but those are terrible odds.

 

[GrauGeist]

Kamikazes couldn't win the war, simply because 1) they couldn't stop B-29s, and 2) they couldn't stop the strangulation by submarine. Either one of those strategies could, imho, have won they war, and indeed both played a vital role.

Kamikazes could not affect either of them.

Again, the Kamikazes weren't intended to win the war, they were instead, meant to make Allied losses so untenable that the Allies would negotiate with the Japanese for a favorable armistice.

The Iwo Jima and Okinawa campaigns were only a taste of what Japan had in store for the Allied invasion fleet.

 

[nuuumannn]

The Iwo Jima and Okinawa campaigns were only a taste of what Japan had in store for the Allied invasion fleet.

Yeah, gulp... US losses would have been horrendous if Downfall went ahead.

 

[GrauGeist]

Yeah, gulp... US losses would have been horrendous if Downfall went ahead.

And Allies - they conservatively estimated losses well over a million Allied persons killed and over twice that number wounded, with a projected victory early to mid-1946.

 

[The Basket]

By 44-45, conventional warfare was no longer an option.

The only advantage Japan had was willingness to die and implacable opposition against surrender.

So Cowabunga it is.

Even in the heyday of Japanese air power, against Lexington or Hornet or Yorktown...losses were high and men died. So cutting the middleman out makes sense. To train a pilot takes fuel but to train a kamikaze is no effort thinking.

Kamikaze is value for money and everyone loves a bargain.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Again, the Kamikazes weren't intended to win the war, they were instead, meant to make Allied losses so untenable that the Allies would negotiate with the Japanese for a favorable armistice.

The Iwo Jima and Okinawa campaigns were only a taste of what Japan had in store for the Allied invasion fleet.

Indeed, until that was obviated by the march of technology. Not the best basket for carrying one's wartime eggs, that.

 

[The Basket]

Depends if you one basket and one egg. It was the only card the Japanese could play.

 

[Peter Gunn]

I read somewhere that damage wise, the Kamikaze achieved better results and fewer losses than conventional attacks.

Suicide attacks are very difficult to stop so it's a win if you can find volunteers.

It's a fine edge if Japanese mentally and socially accepted suicide more than the West. Can you imagine if the Germans fought to the bitter end?

Odd talking about the Emperor and the role of the Emperor. It's likely his personal involvement ended the war and his stamp allowed Japanese overseas garrisons to surrender. Had Suzuki or Anami said so, overseas garrisons would have ignored and the war would have gone on.

Japanese overseas garrisons were known for ignoring Tokyo.

While I pretty much agree with most of your post, the exception I think is the overseas garrisons. Most if not all the islands would have been bypassed and left to die on the vine so to speak, just a tragic waste of human life as it were.

The CBI on the other hand maybe not so much, that could certainly cause a lot of needless pain and suffering. I doubt though, that Uncle Joe would have cared less about wiping out any Japanese in Manchuria.

 

[The Basket]

My apologies.

I meant China and French Indo China. So maybe garrison was the wrong phrase.

Me no speak English good.

But only the Emperor could have surrendered and only the Emperor could have asked Japanese soldiers to surrender as the war was thought in his name.

Banzai or its full form Tennōheika Banzai! Long Live His Majesty the Emperor! So cant Banzai charge for the emperor if the emperor has asked you to surrender. That's doesn't makes senses.

 

[Ascent]

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that the Japanese had any chance of winning, kamikaze or not. But from their perspetive I think kamikaze made sense in a cool, insanely logical way.

 

[The Basket]

Kamikaze was a chance at winning. And it actually worked.

The Americans had zero enthusiasm for an invasion of the mainland.

But Soviets and atom bombs and submarines and B-29s....so if you say 1 out of 5 is a win then well still a win.