# How could the Kamikaze ever be cost-effective? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 19, 2005, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-kamikaze-ever-be-cost-effective/317786 "2005-08-19T18:56:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2005, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-kamikaze-ever-be-cost-effective/317786/1 "2005-08-19T18:56:41Z")
How could the Kamikaze attacks by the Japanese ever be cost-effective as a means of war? Planes aren’t cheap, and neither are trained pilots. What was the rationale for using them? Did they ever take out a capital ship? Did they really have much effect overall? ---
**Author:** ![butler1850](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/779978/32.png) [@butler1850](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/butler1850)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2005, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-kamikaze-ever-be-cost-effective/317786/2 "2005-08-19T19:02:20Z")
1 plane costs less than 1 capital ship. Even if the ship is just put out of action for a while, that would be a greater cost to the enemy than to the Japanese. This was, however, a last ditch effort, and even in the end wouldn’t have done anything but delay the end of the Pacific Theater’s war efforts. ---
**Author:** ![js\_africanus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/87869e/32.png) [@js\_africanus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/js_africanus)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2005, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-kamikaze-ever-be-cost-effective/317786/3 "2005-08-19T19:02:28Z")
They’re a guided bomb with a top-notch guidance system. The planes, IIRC, were loaded with extra explosives and, again IIRC, they were fairly effective. No cite. I’m just recalling a few documentaries I’ve seen. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2005, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-kamikaze-ever-be-cost-effective/317786/4 "2005-08-19T19:06:23Z")
Kamikazi attacks used cheaply built planes and untrained pilots. The rationale was, since Japan was running low on fuel and trained pilots, it was a lot cheaper to use what were, in effect, manually guided missiles. And if you could train one plane and pilot for an enemy destroyer or carrier, it was a good trade. Near the end of the war, the Japanese also developed a steerable manned torpedo. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2005, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-kamikaze-ever-be-cost-effective/317786/5 "2005-08-19T19:45:06Z")
> [@Northern Piper](#): > > Did they ever take out a capital ship? Did they really have much effect overall? [From Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamikaze) Early successes included putting the Australian heavy cruiser _Australia_ temporarily out of commission, and sinking the US escort carrier _St. Lo._ > [@](#): > > The peak came on April 6, 1945 during the Battle of Okinawa, when waves of planes made hundreds of attacks, in Operation Kikusai (“floating chrysanthemums”). At Okinawa, kamikaze attacks focused at first on Allied destroyers on “picket duty”, and then on the carriers in the middle of the fleet. These attacks, which expended 1,465 planes, created havoc: accounts of losses vary, but by the end of the battle, at least 21 US ships had been sunk by kamikazes, along with some from other Allied navies, and dozens more had been damaged. > > . . . > > By the end of World War II, the Japanese naval air service had sacrificed 2,525 kamikaze pilots and the army air force had given 1,387. According to an official Japanese announcement, the missions sank 81 ships and damaged 195, and according to a Japanese tally, suicide attacks accounted for up to 80 percent of US losses in the final phase of the war in the Pacific. However, according to a U.S. Air Force webpage: > > ``` > Approximately 2,800 Kamikaze attackers sunk 34 Navy ships, damaged 368 others, killed 4,900 sailors, and wounded over 4,800. Despite radar detection and cuing, airborne interception and attrition, and massive antiaircraft barrages, a distressing 14 percent of Kamikazes survived to score a hit on a ship; nearly 8.5 percent of all ships hit by Kamikazes sank. > > ``` Beyond the actual damage was the effect on morale. Kamikaze attacks demonstrated that the enemy would stop at nothing and hence were highly intimidating. My father was a young sailor at the battle of Okinawa, and the little he would say about it showed that he felt kamikaze attacks were the most horrific aspect of being in combat. ---
**Author:** ![Ezstrete](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7ea924/32.png) [@Ezstrete](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ezstrete)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2005, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-kamikaze-ever-be-cost-effective/317786/6 "2005-08-19T22:26:47Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > [From Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamikaze) > > Early successes included putting the Australian heavy cruiser _Australia_ temporarily out of commission, and sinking the US escort carrier _St. Lo._ > > Beyond the actual damage was the effect on morale. Kamikaze attacks demonstrated that the enemy would stop at nothing and hence were highly intimidating. My father was a young sailor at the battle of Okinawa, and the little he would say about it showed that he felt kamikaze attacks were the most horrific aspect of being in combat. Let me say that I was at Okinawa too,hav ing arived on that brighg Sunday morning, I’d been on a few other such “Holiday” escapades during the previous couple of years----------and----- —all -in -all,--------- there isn’t a damned thing in war that’s cost effective! Wartime production on a “cost-plus” basis never head of the term. The most important thing was not forgetting to duck! EZ---------the ancient jarhead wih the six digit serial number ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2005, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-kamikaze-ever-be-cost-effective/317786/7 "2005-08-20T01:25:36Z")
The hardest part of flying is learning how to land safely. Obviously, kamakazies didn’t need to learn this, so it was easy to train them. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2005, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-kamikaze-ever-be-cost-effective/317786/8 "2005-08-20T01:29:52Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > The hardest part of flying is learning how to land safely. Obviously, kamakazies didn’t need to learn this, so it was easy to train them. From the Wiki article I linked to: > [@](#): > > Purpose-built kamikaze planes, as opposed to converted fighters and dive-bombers, had no landing gear at all. A specially-designed propellor plane, the Nakajima Ki-115 Tsurugi, was a simple, easy-to-build plane, intended to use up existing stocks of engines, in a wooden airframe. The undercarriage was non-retractable, was jettisoned shortly after take-off for a suicide mission, and then re-used on other planes. Besides being economical, this would pretty well discourage chickening out too. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2005, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-kamikaze-ever-be-cost-effective/317786/9 "2005-08-20T03:11:23Z")
The kamakaze planes were very simple in design with no thought of armament. The aircraft that were purpose-built were made of wood and had no landing gear. They were cheap to build and surprisingly maintenance free. When you think of the waves of humanity that stormed the coast of France on D-day, it makes sense to use kamikaze pilots. They were very [successful](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamikaze): Approximately 2,800 Kamikaze attackers sunk 34 Navy ships, damaged 368 others, killed 4,900 sailors, and wounded over 4,800. Despite radar detection and cuing, airborne interception and attrition, and massive antiaircraft barrages, a distressing 14 percent of Kamikazes survived to score a hit on a ship; nearly 8.5 percent of all ships hit by Kamikazes sank If the 1st planes were simple, the next generation [Cherry blossoms](http://chazen.net/images/Trip0316.jpg) were even simpler. They were basically a glide-to-target human torpedo that would be invisible with the sun behind them. They could be considered the original “stand-off” weapon as they were dropped from bombers a mile or more out. They also had a rocket motor that could be ignited at the last few seconds to drive them in fast. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2005, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-kamikaze-ever-be-cost-effective/317786/10 "2005-08-20T03:21:27Z")
Philosophy students. They used philosophy students. Never study philosophy in Japan. ---
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2005, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-kamikaze-ever-be-cost-effective/317786/11 "2005-08-20T04:24:20Z")
IIRC, they were notably more effective against American aircraft carriers than they were against British aircraft carriers. Mainly because the British used armored flight decks, so the carriers would have a greater degree of protection while operating in the relative confines of the English Channel, and the American carriers had wooden decks, allowing the carriers to be lighter and faster, since the Americans expected to only use them in open sea. A Kamakazi scoring a direct hit on a carrier’s flight deck could cause tremendous damage belowdecks, but on a British carrier, the flight deck woudl take much of the damage. Also, battleships were apparantly nearly invulnerable to Kamikazis, due to their heavy armor protection and heavy anti-aircraft batteries by that stage of the war ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2005, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-could-the-kamikaze-ever-be-cost-effective/317786/12 "2005-08-20T05:09:36Z")
> [@Ezstrete](#): > > there isn’t a damned thing in war that’s cost effective! > > Wartime production on a “cost-plus” basis never head of the term. Couldn’t agree more, **Ezstrete** - poor choice of words on my part! Thanks for the replies everyone - very interesting.