Historical Kamikaze Discussion....

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5838
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

Historical Kamikaze Discussion....

Post by Nemo121 »

This thread is NOT about game modelling of kamikazes but to discuss historical kamikaze usage. Game discussions of kamis just go downhill too quickly to be very useufl.

I'd like to kick it off with a question....

I've seen Ki-45s, Ki-46 Dinahs etc being recorded as being used as kamikazes ( according to Japanese records ) and while I've seen the Allies identify P1Y Frances as kamis I've seen multiple reports from the Japanese side that the Japanese never used twin-engined bombers ( as opposed to fighter-bombers or recon planes ) as kamikazes.

This despite the fact that for the Allied invasion they had modified some Ki-67s with nose-mounted detonators and something like 7,000lbs of explosives for use as anti-personnel kamis... Basic mission plan: "Fly to Kyushu at low level, find a group of American soldiers out in the open or in some readily identifiable trench position and then fly your plane into the middle of the group". Nose-mounted detonator hits the ground, 7,000lbs of explosives goes off right in the middle of that US Company. No more US company just a lot of empty body bags. Anyways those Ki-67s were really envisioned as anti-troop kamis but I've never heard of Japan actually committing twin-engined bombers intentionally as kamis for anti-shipping missions. Many times US pilots reported them as Bettys etc but it turns out they were Ki-45s or suchlike.

Can anyone clarify this? To me it makes little sense that Japan wouldn't use Bettys as kamis. They carried a bigger punch and they were getting shot down in droves whenever committed anyway.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
User avatar
PaxMondo
Posts: 10645
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:23 pm

RE: Historical Kamikaze Discussion....

Post by PaxMondo »

I've also read some accounts of Betty's as Kami's, but since the accounts I have read (and heard) did not describe waves of Betty Kami's, I have always just considered it to be events of individual desperate heroism ...  the pilot knows he isn't going to make it and he's just trying to do as much damage as he can.
Pax
User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5838
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

RE: Historical Kamikaze Discussion....

Post by Nemo121 »

Yes, I've heard of some similar accounts. Bettys and Frances mainly which were on fire and not going to make it home trying to take a last few Americans with them via a crash dive attack. But, as you say, not waves of twin-engined bomber kamis.

I've also never seen video/camera footage of Betty kamis. I had always assumed they were given kami missions but recently as I've read more about it this seems not to have been the case, which surprises me. So I thought I'd ask here.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
User avatar
castor troy
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:17 am
Location: Austria

RE: Historical Kamikaze Discussion....

Post by castor troy »

what would be the reason of not using them as kamis?
User avatar
Misconduct
Posts: 1851
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:13 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, Florida
Contact:

RE: Historical Kamikaze Discussion....

Post by Misconduct »

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Yes, I've heard of some similar accounts. Bettys and Frances mainly which were on fire and not going to make it home trying to take a last few Americans with them via a crash dive attack. But, as you say, not waves of twin-engined bomber kamis.

I've also never seen video/camera footage of Betty kamis. I had always assumed they were given kami missions but recently as I've read more about it this seems not to have been the case, which surprises me. So I thought I'd ask here.

I do remember one account, of a betty that was going to attack either the Lexington or Yorktown during the Battle of Coral Sea, where it was shot up and attempted to crash into the carrier, missing it by a few feet and splashing into the ocean. Can anyone confirm this, been a while since I read it but I do know the photo is out there I will try to find it.
ASUS Maximus IV Extreme-Z Intel Core I7 2800k Corsair Hydro Heatsink Corsair Vengeance DD3 24GB EVGA GTX 580 Western Digital 1.5TB Raid 0 Windows 7
User avatar
vonTirpitz
Posts: 510
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 6:30 pm
Location: Wilmington, NC
Contact:

RE: Historical Kamikaze Discussion....

Post by vonTirpitz »

There appears to be quite a bit of information nestled in the following website which you may find useful.

http://wgordon.web.wesleyan.edu/kamikaze/index.htm
Image
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: Historical Kamikaze Discussion....

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: Misconduct

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Yes, I've heard of some similar accounts. Bettys and Frances mainly which were on fire and not going to make it home trying to take a last few Americans with them via a crash dive attack. But, as you say, not waves of twin-engined bomber kamis.

I've also never seen video/camera footage of Betty kamis. I had always assumed they were given kami missions but recently as I've read more about it this seems not to have been the case, which surprises me. So I thought I'd ask here.

I do remember one account, of a betty that was going to attack either the Lexington or Yorktown during the Battle of Coral Sea, where it was shot up and attempted to crash into the carrier, missing it by a few feet and splashing into the ocean. Can anyone confirm this, been a while since I read it but I do know the photo is out there I will try to find it.

I think that was during the raid on the Marshalls, and it was Enterprise.
User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5838
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

RE: Historical Kamikaze Discussion....

Post by Nemo121 »

That Betty, though, would have been an example of an IJNAF pilot deciding he couldn't make it home and deciding on the spur of the moment to try to hit a US ship. I think that happened fairly regularly but it was very ad hoc and not planned.

I know of several accounts where US, Soviet etc pilots also crashed into ships / ground defences when they knew there was no way for them to get home any longer.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
User avatar
Shark7
Posts: 7936
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:11 pm
Location: The Big Nowhere

RE: Historical Kamikaze Discussion....

Post by Shark7 »

ORIGINAL: castor troy

what would be the reason of not using them as kamis?

Most of the kamikaze planes were either obsolete, or very cheap. Many of them specifically built for the mission. I'm guessing you wouldn't want to waste an expensive twin engine torpedo bomber on that type of mission.
Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'
User avatar
Grunt
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 1:26 am
Location: Idaho, USA

RE: Historical Kamikaze Discussion....

Post by Grunt »

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

That Betty, though, would have been an example of an IJNAF pilot deciding he couldn't make it home and deciding on the spur of the moment to try to hit a US ship. I think that happened fairly regularly but it was very ad hoc and not planned.

I wonder what his crew thought about that?
User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5838
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

RE: Historical Kamikaze Discussion....

Post by Nemo121 »

Well, better a crashing death than burning alive...

I've seen people burn... It looks significantly unpleasant - smells bad too.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
User avatar
redcoat
Posts: 1034
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 9:48 am
Location: UK

RE: Historical Kamikaze Discussion....

Post by redcoat »


I don’t think Bettys were ever organised into Kamikaze units or sent on Kamikaze missions en masse. Individual Bettys did make Kamikaze attacks however. Either because the plane was already badly damaged or because the pilot was especially determined/fanatical. On one occasion two Bettys tried to crash themselves into a ship after first making an unsuccessful bombing run.

At the end of the war Bettys were mostly used to carry out torpedo attacks when used in a naval attack role. To avoid detection they usually attacked at low-level in small groups and usually at night. Bettys were also used for Jinrai operations.

I only know of one Kamikaze unit that was equipped with Frances: the Azusa Special Attack Unit. It carried out a long-range Kamikaze attack on Ulithi Atoll in March 1945. More details here:

http://wgordon.web.wesleyan.edu/kamikaz ... /index.htm
“‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’”

George Orwell, 1984
User avatar
Sheytan
Posts: 811
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 11:53 pm

RE: Historical Kamikaze Discussion....

Post by Sheytan »

Here is a Pic of a Burning IJ bomber headed to the hornet. Link to site http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/PTO/index.html#hell

Image
User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5838
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

RE: Historical Kamikaze Discussion....

Post by Nemo121 »

Redcoat, thanks for the link.

BTW, you use the term jinrai, I'm not familiar with it...
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
User avatar
redcoat
Posts: 1034
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 9:48 am
Location: UK

RE: Historical Kamikaze Discussion....

Post by redcoat »

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
BTW, you use the term jinrai, I'm not familiar with it...

I think Jinrai means something like ‘Divine Thunderbolt’ in Japanese. It was the name given to Ohka missions. The Betty units assigned to the Ohka program took for themselves the name Jinrai Butai (Divine Thunderbolt Corps).
“‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’”

George Orwell, 1984
FatR
Posts: 2522
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:04 am
Location: St.Petersburg, Russia

RE: Historical Kamikaze Discussion....

Post by FatR »

Both P1Y1 and Ki-67 were used as kamikaze aircraft, in limited numbers. The former even scored. Betty, AFAIK, was not.
The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/
User avatar
decaro
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:05 pm
Location: Stratford, Connecticut
Contact:

RE: Historical Kamikaze Discussion....

Post by decaro »

ORIGINAL: Shark7
ORIGINAL: castor troy

what would be the reason of not using them as kamis?

Most of the kamikaze planes were either obsolete, or very cheap. Many of them specifically built for the mission. I'm guessing you wouldn't want to waste an expensive twin engine torpedo bomber on that type of mission.

Perhaps it was also that the "Flying Cigar" -- which was so lightly protected that US fighter pilots called it "the Honerable One-shot Lighter" -- was just too big and fragile a target to perform the role of a kamikazee.

Although it normally carried a crew of abt a half-dozen or so personnel that IJ couldn't all afford to lose, I'm not sure how few personnel could sucessfully fly this a/c, even for a one-way trip.
Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.[center]Image[/center]
[center]"The Angel of Okinawa"[/center]
Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II
User avatar
Q-Ball
Posts: 7403
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 4:43 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

RE: Historical Kamikaze Discussion....

Post by Q-Ball »

It could also be that the Japanese were holding back BETTYS for use as OKHA launchers. They had high-hopes for that program, which proved ultimately to be a failure.
User avatar
redcoat
Posts: 1034
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 9:48 am
Location: UK

RE: Historical Kamikaze Discussion....

Post by redcoat »


The IJA produced a manual for their Kamikaze pilots in February 1945. It included detailed Kamikaze instructions for two types of twin-engined bombers: the Ki-48 Lily and the Ki-67 Peggy.

The Lily carried a Navy No. 80 GP bomb (1763 lb.) in its bomb bay whilst the Peggy carried two No. 80 bombs – one in its bomb bay and one in its fuselage.

The IJA also used the Ki-49 Helen and Ki-21 Sally on Kamikaze missions.
“‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’”

George Orwell, 1984
User avatar
timtom
Posts: 1500
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 9:23 pm
Location: Aarhus, Denmark

RE: Historical Kamikaze Discussion....

Post by timtom »

In "Mitsubishi Type 1 Rikko 'Betty' Units of World War 2" Osamu Tagaya lists 17 G4M equipped-units operating in a tactical capacity after 10/44. Of these, 11 were patrol- or transport units, two were Jinrai units and two were detachments from training units operating during the Okinawa campaign only, one was a provisional outfit and the last got assigned SpecOps towards the end of the war. Tagaya makes no specific mention of G4M's being used in the Special Attack role, rather the closest thing we get is the following with reference to the Okinawa campaign: "Aside from the Jinrai operations of 721 Ku, rikko sorties were limited to conventional attack missions in small numbers at night from bases in Kyushu and Taiwan" (p.94), although this fairly describes the G4M's offensive role from October '44 per Tagaya. Basically, if we accept Tagaya's exposition, the G4M had at this point been withdrawn from service as a tactical daylight bomber, instead to operate as a patrol, transport and night harrassment platform.

In "Japanese Special Attack Aircraft and Flying Bombs", Ryusuke Ishiguro & Tadeusz Januszewski makes no mention of the G4M at all in the Special Attack role, seemingly supporting the above. The P1Y was deployed in some numbers, however, per the authors. Neither of the two Special Attack versions of the Ki-67 are descriped as having been intended for use against land targets, nor, according to this reference, were any of the aircraft specifically designed for that role deployed tactically unless one includes modifications of existing types. The Ki-21 is not listed as a type used for Special Attack.


Where's the Any key?

Image
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”