Which other countries had "suicidal" aircrew in WW2?

[The Basket]

I would fly to the Canaries and call myself Señor Manuel Santos de la Maria.

I would be a seller of knives and dance the night away.

 

[pbehn]

If you army then you in foxhole and the bad guys are coming at you then you ain't got choices. The choices have been made for you.

But let's say you're based at an English air base and you're sleeping in a warm bed with cooked meals and all you have to do is get in that bomber and fly over Germany and get killed. How much do you really want to get in that bomber?

Kinda maybe not so much.

The army and all armies did have missions that were considered suicidal, like storming a breach in a castle wall, this is the origin of the term "forlorn hope", hope is a corruption of the Dutch word for heap. Huge rewards were offered in some cases or prisoners were offered release if they lived.

 

[Escuadrilla Azul]

Might be better than going to a GULag. Might.

Certainly more that one prisioner of the Gulag would try his chances in that kind of mission

 

[Escuadrilla Azul]

I would fly to the Canaries and call myself Señor Manuel Santos de la Maria.

I would be a seller of knives and dance the night away.

Dear The Basket

If come down here to the Canaries, better pick other name, cos de la María could be confused for some kind of ilicit recreative use drug, been María a slang for marijuana! (or so I been told!)

 

[The Basket]

I lived in Las Palmas de Gran Canaria for a few months.

So I can speak some Spanish.

No idea Maria was slang for anything.

My Spanish is no longer very good. But I can still ask where the library is so not all bad

 

[nuuumannn]

(or so I been told!)

Yeah, me too.. People tell me stuff about its effects... not that I can relate or anything...

 

[Dimlee]

Just came across this photo in the book "Tupolev. The Man and his Aircrafts". Aparently the soviets also tried to use a flying manned bomb (torpedo in this case) as antishipping weapon:

View attachment 655518

No, not a kamikaze and not a torpedo but a container for small bombs. For torpedoes - see the link below.
The idea was to create a remote-controlled system. Most probably, the cockpit was just for the test pilot.

http://авиару.рф/aviamuseum/aviatsiya/sssr/morskaya-aviatsiya-2/morskaya-aviatsiya-1920-e-1940-e-gody/proekt-pt-planiruyushhaya-torpeda/planer-spetsialnogo-naznachenie-psn-1/

 

[GrauGeist]

And if your tank is no match for the enemy, drop it on them instead!

 

[Escuadrilla Azul]

No, not a kamikaze and not a torpedo but a container for small bombs. For torpedoes - see the link below.
The idea was to create a remote-controlled system. Most probably, the cockpit was just for the test pilot.

http://авиару.рф/aviamuseum/aviatsiya/sssr/morskaya-aviatsiya-2/morskaya-aviatsiya-1920-e-1940-e-gody/proekt-pt-planiruyushhaya-torpeda/planer-spetsialnogo-naznachenie-psn-1/

Certainly, the caption doesn't match with reality!

Reality is much more interesting, IR guide for a torpedo in mid 1930s!

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Admiral Beez]

On a more serious note, would the P-40 and P-36 pilots at Pearl Harbor qualify by trying to get aloft while under attack?

They were likely more pissed off than suicidal.

 

[AerialTorpedoDude69]

I've got to say that torpedo bomber crew had some of the most suicidal jobs of the war. In particular, the rear gunner on a torpedo bomber, which was the least survivable position in any bomber, had the absolute most dangerous job, period.

The author of the "Last Torpedo Bomber" and the author of "Torpedo 8" both came to the conclusion that anyone who flew a torpedo bomber during WW2 was just a step down from a Kamikaze pilot. They had good evidence to back up that thesis: they both flew torpedo bombers during the war.

The reason is simple: Torpedo bombers had to fly low and slow in order to successfully get off a torpedo. Sometimes they flew so close to their target, they had to fly directly over the ship which oftentimes bristled with 20mm and 25mm autocannon. Can you imagine flying directly at a dual or quad-mounted 25mm turret? It's suicide.

Dropping aerial torpedos may have been effective against lightly armed ships, such as freighters, but when flying without an escort against capital ships, they were little more than suicide missions. Later on in the war, dive bombers and strafing were used to suppress the anti-air gun batteries, before torpedo bombers were brought in. I don't know if that was doctrine but it seemed to work. Only 10 aircraft were lost when attacking Yamato. It seems to have been an improvement over the 18 lost when attacking the battleship Musashi.

And don't forget that Allied bomber pilots oftentimes did intentionally crash damaged aircraft into their targets.

 

[GrauGeist]

Musashi was combat experienced, Yamato spent most of her time tied up in a port somewhere during the war.

 

[Greg Boeser]

And don't forget that Allied bomber pilots oftentimes did intentionally crash damaged aircraft into their targets.

Do we have confirmation of this, or is that just heroic revisionism to explain why an aircraft failed to pull out?

 

[AerialTorpedoDude69]

Do we have confirmation of this, or is that just heroic revisionism to explain why an aircraft failed to pull out?

I apologize for making this comment without including the source, as it's considered extremely controversial. However, it is well supported, despite the lack of a follow-up interview with the pilot.

So did a bomber crash into a Japanese warship at Midway? Yes, that's verified. (It also occurred at other points throughout the war, each event being a verified crash but not fully verified as an intentional crashing of a fatally damaged aircraft.)

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Dropping aerial torpedos may have been effective against lightly armed ships, such as freighters, but when flying without an escort against capital ships, they were little more than suicide missions. Later on in the war, dive bombers and strafing were used to suppress the anti-air gun batteries, before torpedo bombers were brought in. I don't know if that was doctrine but it seemed to work. Only 10 aircraft were lost when attacking Yamato. It seems to have been an improvement over the 18 lost when attacking the battleship Musashi.

1) Dive bombers and torpedo bombers were trained to ideally synchronize their attacks, from port abeam, starboard abeam, and above, to divide AA fire.

2) By 1944, the Mk13 aerial torpedo could be dropped from >1000 feet at >200 kts.

And don't forget that Allied bomber pilots oftentimes did intentionally crash damaged aircraft into their targets.

Maybe, but it was not doctrinal as with the Japanese.

 

[Greg Boeser]

I apologize for making this comment without including the source, as it's considered extremely controversial. However, it is well supported, despite the lack of a follow-up interview with the pilot.

So did a bomber crash into a Japanese warship at Midway? Yes, that's verified. (It also occurred at other points throughout the war, each event being a verified crash but not fully verified as an intentional crashing of a fatally damaged aircraft.)

I am aware of a number of American aircraft that crashed into or nearly into enemy ships. I just question whether it was deliberate.
Another plausible explanation is target fixation. Former US Naval aviator and aviation game designer JD Webster once described a close call he had during a training exercise, when he became fixated on his target and would have collided had not his quarry reacted in time.

 

[GrauGeist]

The B-26 that almost took out Nagumo's bridge was shot up pretty bad.
It may be possible that the pilot was aiming for the bridge or it may have been that he was no longer able to control the bomber.
The pilot of Suzie-Q decided to skim the carrier's deck because it was the safest route through the AA and fighter cover.

 

[EwenS]

Musashi was combat experienced, Yamato spent most of her time tied up in a port somewhere during the war.

Their movements don't support that assertion IMHO. Both pretty similar.

Imperial Battleships

Imperial Battleships

 

[Shortround6]

Sort of a big difference between plane is damaged in action and it probably isn't going to make it back to base and planning on not coming back even before you start the engine.

 

[AerialTorpedoDude69]

I am aware of a number of American aircraft that crashed into or nearly into enemy ships. I just question whether it was deliberate.
Another plausible explanation is target fixation. Former US Naval aviator and aviation game designer JD Webster once described a close call he had during a training exercise, when he became fixated on his target and would have collided had not his quarry reacted in time.

My pet theory is that a lot of people don't like the idea of American fighting men crash diving into the enemy.

A few Christian denominations made exceptions for soldiers who jumped on grenades, but I never heard of anything about crashing a crippled bomber into an enemy carrier's bridge. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have flown with the vatican. And I'd bet it wouldn't have flown with the public, either.

Sort of a big difference between plane is damaged in action and it probably isn't going to make it back to base and planning on not coming back even before you start the engine.

There is a big difference, but the main question was whether there were other countries who had suicide pilots similar to Japan. And the answer is, yes. A lot of bomber pilots, if they were shot up and had limited control over their craft, would steer into enemy targets. We just can't get confirmation because of the nature of the damage to their aircraft.

To further answer the main topic, in case it hasn't been answered yet, the Nazis also had two Kamikaze programs. One was midly successful. The other, Hitler called off at the last minute.