# Could the Japanese\* have done better starting with kamikaze attacks? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 14, 2012, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-japanese-have-done-better-starting-with-kamikaze-attacks/634653 "2012-09-14T01:36:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2012, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-japanese-have-done-better-starting-with-kamikaze-attacks/634653/21 "2012-09-14T12:01:41Z")
> [@Bozuit](#): > > What about developing dedicated kamikaze planes though? They could have some kind of armour-piercing ability and maybe materials or time can be saved by developing planes not intended to last for more than one flight. You could even make fun size versions and get those useless children\* to pilot them. Then essentially put a warhead on the plane and make it as close to a missile, in effect, as possible. They had [that](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yokosuka_MXY7_Ohka). ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2012, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-japanese-have-done-better-starting-with-kamikaze-attacks/634653/22 "2012-09-14T14:31:13Z")
> [@Bozuit](#): > > \*I do not advocated, nor have I ever advocated, the use of children on suicide missions in times of war or peace. I just think it would be practical. For some reason I “heard” that with the voice of Martha Stewart. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2012, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-japanese-have-done-better-starting-with-kamikaze-attacks/634653/23 "2012-09-14T18:20:03Z")
It’s an interesting idea. It would have to be compared with how effective “normal” attacks were and their attrition rates. For example, let’s say on average it took 20 dive bombers to sink an aircraft carrier and on average 2 bombers were lost per mission (which seems reasonable but I could be way off). If kamikaze attacks had a 80% chance of success per plane then 2 kamikazes with 18 supporting fighters might have better results with the same number of pilots lost (or even better, if the bombers have two crew members). If we assumed that kamikaze pilots were recruited from lower-quality pilots then the net outcome would be even better (sacrificing two poor pilots instead of average pilots). ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2012, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-japanese-have-done-better-starting-with-kamikaze-attacks/634653/24 "2012-09-14T18:30:29Z")
I’m beginning to think that the Japanese starting this tactic in 1935 would have changed the entire US strategy. We wouldn’t have been easily caught of guard in Hawaii, and we would have concentrated far more on long range aerial bombing of Japanese land targets. Our fleet would have been mostly carriers and support ships to maintain heavy air defense against incoming. Submarines are the only sea craft we’d want anywhere near Japanese ships because Kamikazes have at least double the range of fighter craft. We might have ended up going after Japan with a heavier ground war in China and Korea to attack them from ground bases instead of the sea. ---
**Author:** ![shiftless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9c0ed/32.png) [@shiftless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shiftless)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2012, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-japanese-have-done-better-starting-with-kamikaze-attacks/634653/25 "2012-09-14T18:40:47Z")
In the early part of the war, Japan didn’t have a whole lot of trouble sinking ships just fine, thank you very much, using normal methods. Kamikazes might have been able to do more damage than conventional means sometimes but over all I think the difference would have been small. Flying a plane with a bomb or torpedo to a target and then returning the plane and pilot to home is a great method, IF the pilot is skilled enough to do damage while over the target. The plane and pilot don’t add much to the damage. Once the pilots could no longer damage targets using normal methods, whether because of low skill or better allied defense, Kamikazes found a place. Over all though, a nation that starts with the idea that it will have to resort to suicide attacks to even hope to win might want to reconsider whether to start a war. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2012, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-japanese-have-done-better-starting-with-kamikaze-attacks/634653/26 "2012-09-14T18:45:48Z")
> [@shiftless](#): > > Over all though, a nation that starts with the idea that it will have to resort to suicide attacks to even hope to win might want to reconsider whether to start a war. Doesn’t seem to have been a lot of reconsideration lately. ---
**Author:** ![Hypno-Toad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b2d939/32.png) [@Hypno-Toad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypno-Toad)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2012, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-japanese-have-done-better-starting-with-kamikaze-attacks/634653/27 "2012-09-14T19:53:08Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > …It’s also possible that they could have had a few trained for fights against other carriers. However, in either case, once they started using that tactic, the US would have found some way of combating it. The USN adapted to kamikazes by replacing much of the 20mm AA positions with 40mm ones. These had a much better chance of sufficiently damaging an incoming plane that it would not be able to continue to target. Some classes of carriers had turrets with 5-inch AA guns. In the begining of the war, many of the crew hated them because they were so loud and fired right over the heads of some of the lighter gun pits. But once the kamikazes started, the opinion reversed because a near hit from a 5-incher would utterly destroy a kamikaze, giving little chance of a mortally wounded pilot taking the plane into the target. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2012, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-japanese-have-done-better-starting-with-kamikaze-attacks/634653/28 "2012-09-14T20:36:53Z")
> [@shiftless](#): > > In the early part of the war, Japan didn’t have a whole lot of trouble sinking ships just fine, thank you very much, using normal methods. Kamikazes might have been able to do more damage than conventional means sometimes but over all I think the difference would have been small. Flying a plane with a bomb or torpedo to a target and then returning the plane and pilot to home is a great method, IF the pilot is skilled enough to do damage while over the target. The plane and pilot don’t add much to the damage. Once the pilots could no longer damage targets using normal methods, whether because of low skill or better allied defense, Kamikazes found a place. ^This. > [@Deeg](#): > > For example, let’s say on average it took 20 dive bombers to sink an aircraft carrier and on average 2 bombers were lost per mission (which seems reasonable but I could be way off). If kamikaze attacks had a 80% chance of success per plane then 2 kamikazes with 18 supporting fighters might have better results with the same number of pilots lost (or even better, if the bombers have two crew members). If we assumed that kamikaze pilots were recruited from lower-quality pilots then the net outcome would be even better (sacrificing two poor pilots instead of average pilots). You’re way off, both on conventional and kamikaze numbers. Your kamikaze figure is much further off than the one for dive bombers though, success rates were nowhere near 80%. While a number of fleet carriers were badly damaged by kamikazes, none were sunk. The largest ships sunk by kamikazes were escort carriers. Destroyers as a ship type suffered the largest number of losses to kamikazes, largely due to their use as radar pickets during the Okinawa campaign to provide early warning of incoming kamikaze attacks. Again from [wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamikaze#Effects): > [@](#): > > As the end of the war approached, the Allies did not suffer significantly more serious losses, despite having far more ships and facing a greater intensity of kamikaze attacks. Although causing some of the heaviest casualties on US carriers in 1945, the IJN had sacrificed 2,525 kamikaze pilots and the IJAAF 1,387; far more than they had lost in 1942 where they sunk or crippled three carriers (albeit without inflicting significant casualties). In 1942 when US Navy vessels were scarce, the temporary absence of key warships from the combat zone would tie up operational initiatives. However, by 1945, the US Navy was large enough that damaged ships could be detached back home for repair without significantly hampering the fleet’s operational capability. The only surface losses were destroyers and smaller ships that lacked the capability to sustain heavy damage. Overall, the kamikazes were unable to turn the tide of the war and stop the Allied invasion. The number of ships lost to kamikazes is slightly disputed with figures of 34, 57 and 47 given. The website [here](http://wgordon.web.wesleyan.edu/kamikaze/background/ships-sunk/index.htm) gives the 47 figure with explanation for the difference of 10 from the 57 figure. None of the ships sunk were particuarly large vessels; the number includes ships as small as PT-boats, LCS(L) and LSM(R). ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2012, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-japanese-have-done-better-starting-with-kamikaze-attacks/634653/29 "2012-09-14T20:53:25Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > They had [that](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yokosuka_MXY7_Ohka). Exactly so. Turns out that, even if you get within range before your launch-plane is shot down, piloting a 600mph missile onto target isn’t as easy as you think, given that you get one go at getting it right. It could make a nasty mess of what it hit, but its hit ratio wasn’t high. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2012, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-japanese-have-done-better-starting-with-kamikaze-attacks/634653/30 "2012-09-15T05:03:28Z")
As I said in my earlier post, the Japanese didn’t start the war with the idea of mainly fighting the Americans. In the mid 30s, they thought that their enemies would be China and perhaps the USSR. Suicide bombers make little sense against land targets. ---
**Author:** ![gms453](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@gms453](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gms453)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2012, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-japanese-have-done-better-starting-with-kamikaze-attacks/634653/31 "2012-09-15T16:51:16Z")
> [@jovan](#): > > [Submarine aircraft carrier.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_aircraft_carrier) > > I really want to stress the recruitment problem. A friend of mine once talked to a former kamikaze pilot-in-training, and his true reason for joining had very little to do with honour. He knew he was going to fight, and the way the war was going, he knew he was going to die. Kamikaze pilots were comparatively pampered and he only wanted a bit of comfort before he died. I think his story was typical. Did any who actually went on a suicide mission survive? If so, how? ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2012, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-japanese-have-done-better-starting-with-kamikaze-attacks/634653/32 "2012-09-16T06:03:40Z")
> [@gms453](#): > > Did any who actually went on a suicide mission survive? If so, how? It’s pretty easy. Don’t attack. It did happen sometimes. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2012, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-japanese-have-done-better-starting-with-kamikaze-attacks/634653/33 "2012-09-16T07:10:26Z")
> [@gms453](#): > > Did any who actually went on a suicide mission survive? If so, how? I remember watching a documentary which said that if they did not sight a worthwhile target, they were supposed to return. ---
**Author:** ![user\_hostile](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/user_hostile/32/474_2.png) [@user\_hostile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/user_hostile)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2012, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-japanese-have-done-better-starting-with-kamikaze-attacks/634653/34 "2012-09-16T07:48:04Z")
> [@Hypno-Toad](#): > > The USN adapted to kamikazes by replacing much of the 20mm AA positions with 40mm ones. These had a much better chance of sufficiently damaging an incoming plane that it would not be able to continue to target. Some classes of carriers had turrets with 5-inch AA guns. In the begining of the war, many of the crew hated them because they were so loud and fired right over the heads of some of the lighter gun pits. But once the kamikazes started, the opinion reversed because a near hit from a 5-incher would utterly destroy a kamikaze, giving little chance of a mortally wounded pilot taking the plane into the target. Don’t forget the impact of the [radar proximity fuse](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximity_fuze)… ---
**Author:** ![jovan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/0ea827/32.png) [@jovan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jovan)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2012, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-japanese-have-done-better-starting-with-kamikaze-attacks/634653/35 "2012-09-16T12:18:31Z")
> [@gms453](#): > > Did any who actually went on a suicide mission survive? If so, how? In his case, the war ended before he finished his training. ---
**Author:** ![Simple\_Linctus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Simple\_Linctus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simple_Linctus)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2012, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-japanese-have-done-better-starting-with-kamikaze-attacks/634653/36 "2012-09-16T12:41:15Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > I remember watching a documentary which said that if they did not sight a worthwhile target, they were supposed to return. Yep in fact I’ve seen one with a Kamikaze pilot who flew back - I think he had mechanical problems. ---
**Author:** ![Cicero](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cicero/32/3594_2.png) [@Cicero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cicero)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2012, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-japanese-have-done-better-starting-with-kamikaze-attacks/634653/37 "2012-09-16T12:44:34Z")
I guess, for a start it would have ruled out any chance of a 3rd strike on Pearl harbor. That aside, I’m not sure it would have made much difference. The USA were producing a zillion carriers, so they would have just given them armoured decks. Kamikazes were far less successful against hardened targets. As has been mentioned, there would have been different tactics by the US Navy with the combat air patrol- I assume they would have virtually saturated the horizon with their superior fighters and the obsolete aircraft used as kamikazes would have been pretty easy prey. I agree with Dissonance and Stranger above. However, I think we need to get some perspective as well. The focus seems to be on attacks on the fleet as it was doing the island hopping business. The war involved far more than that, including many Japanese bombing attacks on non naval targets. (I understand Darwin was hit 247 times). So, if you are advocating kamikaze attacks against all the targets in the land area that Japan conquered, you would quickly run out of planes and pilots. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2012, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-japanese-have-done-better-starting-with-kamikaze-attacks/634653/38 "2012-09-16T12:57:04Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > I remember watching a documentary which said that if they did not sight a worthwhile target, they were supposed to return. Wiki gives and account of someone who wasn’t very good at finding [targets](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamikaze). > [@](#): > > The tokkōtai pilot’s manual also explained how a pilot may turn back if the pilot could not locate a target and that “[a pilot] should not waste [his] life lightly.” However, one pilot who continually came back to base was shot after his ninth return.[41] For people interested in the US response to the attacks, [this report is of value](http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/Kamikaze/AAA-Summary/index.html#contents). > [@](#): > > Antiaircraft Action Summary > Suicide Attacks > April 1945 > Navy Dept. Seal > United States Fleet > Headquarters of the Commander in Chief From within the report: > [@](#): > > Sufficient reports have been received of suicide actions between 1 October 2944 and 31 January 1945 to permit analysis of the extent and seriousness of the new enemy tactics, and of our own success in coping with them. These reports are not complete, but represent a sample large enough to give an accurate picture of results during this period. > > Unfortunately a plane’s intentions on approaching within gun range, when it becomes an AA. problem, are not always clear. If it is shot down at long range its intentions are never revealed. The statistics on the suicide problem presented in Tables I and II at the end of this chapter, accordingly, are restricted to only those planes which definitely commit themselves to suicide attacks. They reveal AA. performance under surprise and close-range conditions only. > > Suicide attacks by no means represent the only tactics in current use by Japanese aircraft. From 1 October through January, when 312 suicide crash attempts were made, some 1,132 planes which did not make suicide attacks menaced our surface forces, i.e., approached within gun range. Of these 936 either made conventional attacks or withdrew in the face of ships’ gunfire, and obviously were not suiciders since they neither crash dived nor were shot down. > > The remaining 196 fall in an indefinite category. Since they were shot down it cannot be said with any degree of certainty whether or not they intended to commit suicide. It seems reasonable to assume that the same proportion of these 196 intended to suicide as is determined from the known cases, and that AA. performance had equal success against conventional and suicide attackers. Thus 24 percent of the total sorties which reached within ships’ gun range were suicide attackers, and 76 percent used conventional attacks or harassing tactics. > > Summarizing, analysis of AA. actions shows: > > 1444 suicide and non-suicide planes were taken under fire. > 352 suicide planes approached within gun range. > 40 or 11 percent of these were shot down before committing themselves to a crash attempt. > 312 suicide attempts actually were made on ships. > 191 or 61 percent were shot down or deflected, but of these 53 or 17 percent, crashed close enough to ships to damage them. > 1092 non-suicide planes were taken under fire. > 156 or 14 percent, were shot down. An interesting read, it reinforces the point that combatants will develop tactics to counter their enemy’s tactics. Personally, I think that Japan was screwed from the moment it decided to attack America. There are a few things it could have done to slightly delay the inevitable, but especially with the mindset predominant by the field generals of the IJA, there wasn’t much they could have done differently. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2012, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-japanese-have-done-better-starting-with-kamikaze-attacks/634653/39 "2012-09-16T14:21:58Z")
In fact even when the Kamakazis began in earnest, the two most successful attacks against ships, against the carrier _Franklin_ and the heavy cruiser _Indianapolis_ were by aircraft and submarine, respectively. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2012, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-japanese-have-done-better-starting-with-kamikaze-attacks/634653/40 "2012-09-16T23:50:01Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > None of the ships sunk were particuarly large vessels; the number includes ships as small as PT-boats, LCS(L) and LSM(R). They sunk three escort carriers, which is not insignificant. Escort carriers were the idea target, with all of the aircraft fuel and bombs on board made the subsequent fire too hot to contain. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-japanese-have-done-better-starting-with-kamikaze-attacks/634653.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-japanese-have-done-better-starting-with-kamikaze-attacks/634653.md?page=3)