Kamikaze's (WWII Quick Question)

Factual Questions
1

The thread in GD on the Pearl Harbor attack brought to mind a question that’s puzzled me since I was a kid watching old war movies.

Why did Japanese Kamikaze fighters fly low and straight at Allied naval vessels? By doing it this way it seemed they usually got torn up long before they reached their intended target and plunged into the sea (as I believe statistics show…Kamikazes were somewhat of a psychological weapon but beyond that didn’t prove to be very effective).

Why not spot the enemy, fly nice aand high (out of the range of AA guns) and then dive-bomb the ship you want to hit? Even if you’re shot on the way down if you aimed right you’d still have momentum finish the job for you and maybe strike your target anyway. Besides, I thought most weapons onboard warships point outwards and couldn’t really shoot straight up so you’d have less flak to get through.

I realize I’m no pilot much less a fighter pilot and I suppose the Japanese had good reason for using the attack profiles they did. I’m just curious why they did it that way.

2

Just guessing here, but I’d assume that flying straight and level made it easier for the kamikaze pilot to hit the target. The Japanese didn’t exactly spend a lot of time training them; usually just enough to be able to take off, fly relatively straight, and maybe hit a big target.

3

Here’s another wild guess: maybe Kamikaze pilots that attacked low and straight were a lot easier to catch on film, and are therefore over-represented in the old newsreels.

And another: Maybe blowing a hole in the side of the target ship is more likely to sink it than dropping a bomb on top of it is.

4

All assemblies of warships require a defensive air umbrella. The last big warship battle without aircraft involvement was the battle of Jutland in WWI (I think). I suggest that the kamikazes had a better chance of success by sneaking in low than going high and attracting the attention of fighter patrols from the carriers.

5

Based on my studies, It was mostly due to training, but aircraft condition had a lot to do with it.

By the time the Japanese Empire was in dire straits, The cream of their fighter pilots were dead. The kamikaze pilots were young, idealistic, and very superficially trained.

It takes a great deal of training and experience to create a good dive bomber pilot, and a good aircraft in which to do it. The Japanese didn’t send their best and newest fighters off on one way missions, but used obsolete and war-weary ones.

All this conspired to make the low level, straight in approach the most feasible, and even with the lack of equipment and training, the Divine Wind was remarkably successful. Although I don’t have an accurate number at this time, it was in the hundreds of ships, damaged and sunk, which most people don’t realize.

6

One more WAG - even if you’re committed to die (welded in the crate IIRC), it’s difficult not to flinch at the last second. The last second is a much longer distance in a power dive vs a low level sneak.

Also must agree that “low and slow 'kazes” would be over represented in film footage.

7

Weren’t many of the kamikaze “planes” actually gliders?

8

I don’t know the exact types of the planes used for suicide missions, but I’m sure they weren’t gliders. Gliders would be very easy targets.

There was the “Okha” (which the Americans called “Baka” – “Foolish”, or “idiot”) that did not fly to the attack area underits own power. It was carried by a “Betty” bomber and it was to be released near the action to be carried to the target by its rocket engines. I think the range was something like 20 miles.

I don’t know how many actually made it to their targets. I remember one raid where all of the Bettys, with the Okhas still attached, were shot down before they were close enough to launch.

Someone else on the board will know more about it than I.

9

I believe that the Japanese also made Kamikaze speedboats as well. They were to be used if the Americans invaded Japan.

10

Not totally sure about this, but I believe there were several battles in the Pacific in the early part of WWII which didn’t involve any aircraft. Specifically, I think the Battle of Leyte Gulf might have been the last “major” naval battle to not involve aircraft. There were also a large number of smaller engagements throughout the war in the pacific which took place at night, and thus necessarily precluded the use of (pre-radar equipped) aircraft.

11

Johnny L.A. has it right: the okha, or “cherry blossom,” (properly the Yokosuka MXY-7) was not a glider, but a rocket-powered human-guided missile, launched from a mother aircraft, the Mitsubishi G4M (“Betty”). It had three solid rockets, and could reach speeds over 400 mph, with a limited range of only about 22 miles. It would have been quite effective, but for the fact that a Betty lumbering along with another aircraft weighing nearly two tons strapped underneath a wing proved an easy target for Allied fighters. http://avia.russian.ee/air/japan/yoko_ohka.html

One okha did manage to hit the battleship USS West Virginia, another damaged the British carrier HMS Indefatigable (both off Okinawa) and yet another sunk a destroyer, the USS Mannert L Abele. Some 750 okhas were produced, but most were not used in action, due to the vulnerability of the mother aircraft.

The Kamakaze were far more than an effective psychological weapon; they packed quite a punch:

October 25-26, 1944: (Leyte Gulf), Japanese Kamakaze aircraft sank one US escort carrier (the St. Lo), and damaged five others (one of which, the Suannee, was sunk shortly after by Japanese submarine I-56).

January 21, 1945: Kamakaze aircraft damaged US carriers Langley and Ticonderoga, and the destroyer Maddox.

February 21, 1945: off Iwo Jima, US escort carrier Bismarck Sea sunk by Kamakaze; another escort carrier damaged, also carrier Saratoga.

March 11, 1945: US carrier Randolph damaged by Kamakaze.

March 19/20, 1945: US carriers Wasp, Enterprise, Essex and Franklin damaged by Kamakaze aircraft.

April 1, 1945: US battleship West Virginia and British carrier HMS Indefatigable damaged by Kamakaze Okha attacks, off Okinawa.

April 12, 1945: US destroyer Mannert L. Abele sunk by Kamakaze Okha.

May 9, 1945: US destroyer escort England heavily damaged by Kamakaze.

May 14, 1945: US carrier Enterprise damaged by Kamakaze.

While we westerners may deplore the seeming desparate waste of personnel and aircraft, it was a low-risk gamble for the Japanese (as a whole, that is…it was about as high-risk as it gets for the pilots!), with possible high returns. An aircraft and pilot (or even a dozen) is a relatively cheap price to pay for the chance of sinking, crippling, or at least damaging an aircraft carrier.

12

I think BigJoe is right in that the premise of the OP is incorrect. Of course the Kamikazes would try to dive onto their target from high altitude. One of the most famous pieces of Kamikaze footage has an aircraft diving onto a carrier from about a 45-degree angle. Film of Jap planes coming in low and level were most likely torpedo bomber attacks.

13

The Japanese used both tactics, often at the same time. In fact, their tactics suggest that the Japanese had learned a trick or two from their defeat Midway, where (more or less by coincidence) low-flying American torpedo bombers (unsuccessfully) attacked the Japanese carriers and drew the Japanese combat air patrol down to them just prior to a (very successful) high-level dive-bomber attack. There are additional reasons for incorporating this plan of attack into the Kamikaze.

Flying in at low level avoids the fuel expenditure of climbing to a cruising altitude. The Japanese were parsimonious with their aviation fuel because they really didn’t have much left by the time Kamikazes were employed. (The Devastators of Torpedo 8 at Midway pulled the same trick to reach the Japanese carriers. It is only by coincidence that American Dauntless dive-bombers showed up at the same time. As it happens, Torpedo 8 might as well as fueled for a one-way trip: all of them were shot down.)

Coming in at the waterline makes it fairly easy for a poorly trained pilot to target a warship. Furthermore, there is a good chance that a successful hit will hole a ship below the waterline. Also, coming in at low level avoids radar and exposes an attacker to only one-half of the target’s defensive armament. When combined with a high-level Kamikaze attack (often escorted by trained non-Kamikaze fighters), there is a better chance of drawing off low-level fighter cover–a reverse-Midway, if you will.

Radar, and its avoidance or neutralization, was a large concern for the Japanese. As most Kamikaze pilots knew only the rudiments of flying, suprise was essential, so American forward radar had to be taken out. As you can see from Rodd’s fine list of successful attacks, a number of attacks were directed at radar picket destroyers and DEs at Okinawa. One destroyer crew got so fed up with being constantly harassed by suicidal attackers that they set up an arrow-shaped sign pointing to the rear saying, “Carriers This Way.”

14

Why is it that we (the winners) treat the Kamikaze pilots as ideological fools while our soldiers who jump on hand grenades to protect their buddies are heroes worthy of our nation’s highest honor? The Kamikazes were doing much more real good to defend their country. They could kill many more of the enemy and destroy more of the enemy’s resources than a couple of guys with rifles who were saved by their friend’s sacrifice ever could.

This is not to denigrate those who have made that ultimate sacrifice, but we should recognize it on both sides.

15

Why is it that we (the winners) treat the Kamikaze pilots as ideological fools while our soldiers who jump on hand grenades to protect their buddies are heroes worthy of our nation’s highest honor? The Kamikazes were doing much more real good to defend their country. They could kill many more of the enemy and destroy more of the enemy’s resources than a couple of guys with rifles who were saved by their friend’s sacrifice ever could.

This is not to denigrate those who have made that ultimate sacrifice, but we should recognize it on both sides.

16

I hate computers.

17

I don’t think anyone on this board is treating kamikazes like ideological fools. I didn mention “baka”, but that is an historically-documented term that was used by Americans at the time the attacks were taking place.

18

No, no, Johnny! I mean WE as “The American People,” although that is pretty provincial of me HERE. I have noticed on British TV shows, especially “Battlefield,” a more balanced approach, but maybe I saw “Victory at Sea” too often because I felt trained from birth to find Kamikaze pilots objects of ridicule. Here everybody has been properly respectful.

But this was the longest I have seen a discussion/article/documentary about the Ohka to go before mentioning the word “Baka.”

19

Well, speaking for myself, I do consider them ideological fools. There’s a big difference between someone impulsively jumping on a grenade to save his comrades and someone ritualistically committing suicide in the hope of killing a bunch of others in the process.

I also would argue there’s a difference between kamikazes and someone who performs the kind of “suicide mission” you see in old movies – picture John Wayne sacrificing himself so the rest of the platoon can escape or something like that. There’s something about a military force adopting a policy of suicide that just gives me the creeps.

20

Sure, it was creepy by our lights, but I can think of few ways that are better for pin-point-delivery than a human pilot. Especially lacking effective computer guidance or radio control.

And is an impulsive act more heroic than one you have deliberated over for a month? Not being heroic, but being impulsive, I don’t think so.