Kamikaze

[Raverdave]

I am interested to know how WitP is going to model Kamikaze attacks.

For example..........when are you going to able to start using kamikaze tactics......do you have to wait until late '43, early '44 ? Will it be totally dependant upon how well Japan is going or not going?
IIRC something like 30% of all kamikaze attacks got past the AA and CAP to score a hit. Therefore with those historical figures, what is to prevent the IJN player from simply ordering ALL of his a/c to launch these types of attacks?

[Fred98]

Firstly, Kamikaze is a one way mission. The aircraft cannot be used again.

Secondly, the aircraft will have a victory point value when they are destroyed– the Japanese player probably will not want to lose them.

Thirdly there could be a specific Kamikaze squadron – or squadrons. The player would then have the choice as to when and where to strike.

-

[Ross Moorhouse]

Originally posted by Joe 98

Secondly, the aircraft will have a victory point value when they are destroyed– the Japanese player probably will not want to lose them.

-

Unless we use a negitive figure for these types of planes only which would then add to the Jap score.

[Raverdave]

Originally posted by Joe 98
Firstly, Kamikaze is a one way mission. The aircraft cannot be used again.

Secondly, the aircraft will have a victory point value when they are destroyed– the Japanese player probably will not want to lose them.

Thirdly there could be a specific Kamikaze squadron – or squadrons. The player would then have the choice as to when and where to strike.

-

There were indeed specific Kamikaze squadrons at the start.....but towards the latter half of '44, many more aircraft were used from "regular" squadrons. I understand the points issue, but if I have a 1 in 3 chance of damaging a ship and thefore taking it out of the line for weeks even months, then the loss of three aircraft to do so is viable. Conventional attacks by this stage of the war were not nearly as successful. The only issue for the IJN player is then, is it better to use you diminishing supply of aircraft for suicide attacks or conventional attacks?

[byron13]

If I understand you, you're saying that one in three kamikazes that started a mission succeeded in hitting a ship. That sounds a little high to me. I think it's a plausible figure against radar picket ships, but not an average for all kamikaze missions.

You'll notice that I'm not quoting any of my own figures. I'm sure someone will provide more detailed figures and reams of supporting sources.

[doomonyou]

Let the japanese player go kamikaze when he wants..he'll have great fun for a short while and than spend the rest of the war with 20 hour experience pilots flying everywhere.

Here are some figures from a page dealing with this

In summation, the Okinawa kikusui operation damaged 368
ships and sunk 32. Suicide planes killed 4,900 American sailors
and wounded over 4,800. These were the heaviest losses incurred
in any naval campaign in World War II. Over 2,000 Japanese
pilots lost their lives in the suicide attacks off Okinawa.
Because the many kamikaze attacks at Okinawa did not stem the
American advance, Vice Admiral Matome Ugaki, commander of the
Japanese 5th Air Fleet, wanted to atone to the Emperor and the
kamikazes who died under his command. He ordered three planes
readied, intending to lead a final suicide attack against
Okinawa. The attack was scheduled to leave Japanþs Kyushu Island
on Aug. 15, 1945, the day the Emperor announced the decision to
surrender.



So of approximately 2000 planes used in the okinawa death raids thier success rate was around 20%. Also after these raids the Japanese air arm was finished and effectively ceased to offer all but token resistance.

[mdiehl]

"IIRC something like 30% of all kamikaze attacks got past the AA and CAP to score a hit. Therefore with those historical figures, what is to prevent the IJN player from simply ordering ALL of his a/c to launch these types of attacks?"

That sounds way off if you're talking about hits per sortie, and pretty high if your talking about hits by planes that found a ship to attack, evaded the Cap and attempted to wade through flak.

IIRC the hit rate per sortie was about 2%. The rest being shot down by CAP, flak, never finding a target, or aborting due to mechanical failure (the rates of which were rather high at the tail end of the war).

Of those that found ships, probably at least 75% were shot down by CAP or AAA. Of the remainder, most simply missed, hitting only water.

Further, IIRC, the majority of ships that were hit were either isolated pickets, or parked (As at Karema Retto, where WAGC 31, USGC Bibb, a 327' high-endurance cutter, shot down or aborted so many Japanese a/c she received a unit citation. The 5" and 40 mm had the C/O's admonition to AAA gunners to lead their targets stenciled on the splinter/splash shields: "LEAD! DAMMIT, LEAD!" IIRC, Kamikazes made something like 40 runs at the Karema Retto group, hitting USS Terror and maybe one other.. not Bibb).

There are of course the burning exceptions, like Franklin.

[Raverdave]

Yeah the picket ships really copped it bad......there is a story of one of these picket shipd being so pissed off with constantly being attacked that they painted a sign with a big arrow saying "Carriers this way"

[CynicAl]

Franklin was bombed, not crashed. Right enough about the "burning," though.

[Q-Ball]

Good responses, I am interested in this as well. It seems like most of the tools are available in UV already for these types of attacks; if the plane gets through the screen, there should be a high-percentage chance of a hit with all ordinance on board (2 x 1000 bombs or whatever). Sounds like trouble for the Allies, except that pilot experience would be about 30 or something absurd, any flights that "failed to find target" would crash into the sea, and by 1944 every US vessel carried massive amounts of flak, with large CAPs of F6F's and Corsairs from 12+ fleet carriers, and many CVE's. It's no wonder that conventional attacks did no damage at all with that kind of defense

[Supervisor]

Now are they going to model the "friendly fire" damage from AA?

I know of at least 3 different times that the Enterprise was hit by proximity fuzed 5" AA shells fired by her own TF. Twice it caused large fires and once did more damage than a bomb did (set off fuel & ammo from the waiting planes as well as from the AA guns).

Be interesting to see if they can get that factored in.

[Jeremy Pritchard]

I can see them setting up a system of Kamikazes like Pacific War, where on a certain time, or targetted by the occupation of a particular base or region by enemy forces on a specific date the.

Possibly you will be limited first to a few special Navy Kamikaze squadrons (the navy went first), then to a few special Army Kamikaze squadrons, then you are allowed to change the order for X many regular squadrons / turn, gradually building up to a maximum.

I am not sure, but I don't really know of many regular squadrons that contained any form of real war veterans that went Kamikaze beyond a few isolated incidents. It was realized that Kamikazes were a way in adding firepower to the air forces without necessarily crippling its regular forces. They tended to use specially trained volunteers, or their poorest trained regulars. I doubt they would order some of their aces to go on a kamikaze mission!

I think that this should be a limitation of Kamikaze groups, they cannot have X or higher experience. This will probably limit the number of groups, as well as the potential for abuse in the Kamikaze system by having regulars fly in and score more than 20% hit ratios.

However, Kamikazes should not just always be limtied to this 20% kill ratio, or else what is the point? There should be a way to maximize kills with Kamikazes under certain circumstances, or else why use them if they cost so many aircraft for such little return?


In War In the Pacific I am pretty sure that you will not see the same course of history that happened during the war. Rarely are the Japanese air forces as crippled in later years in any of the Pacific War games, as the Japanese player tends to train his groups like mad before sending them out to combat, and retreats grous that are getting nailed in combat before they reach intolerable levels of experience. You will most likely encounter air groups during the later period of the war with higher levels of experience had you played from 1941 or 1942 to this point, primarily because your opponent will not sacrifice all of their good pilots like they did historically. So, most likely, the regular Japanese air forces will be tougher opponents and score more hits using conventional means without (and hopefully restricted from if an experience limitation is used) relying solely on Kamikaze missions.

[mdiehl]

"if the plane gets through the screen, there should be a high-percentage chance of a hit with all ordinance on board (2 x 1000 bombs or whatever). "

I completely disagree. There should be a modest chance of a hit and then often involving only partial ordnance. The basic problem is that most diving a/c simply missed their targets. It was a combination of low amounts of training among pilot, and high speed maneuvering in a bomb-laden plane is never easy. A common mistake was to make high angle dives... almost a certain miss because the planes flown were very slow to respond change direction in high speed dives and more so when laden with ordnance. The problem with low altitude, level approaches was a greater exposure to AAA (you weren;t moving as fast), and ground effect, which could easily scragg a rookie's aim.

Often, as a result of partial damage or maneuvering, pilots had to ditch their ordnance in order to live long enough to hit anything. Often, when a kami hit, the ordnance flew clear of the target, detonating in the sea, thereby drastically reducing the damage.

[Jeremy Pritchard]

Maybe there should either be Kamikaze orders, such as...

1. Attack at high angle (less chance of hit, but better chance of getting through CAP and AA to make an attempt to hit)

2. Attack at low angle (greater chance of a good it, but a poorer chance of getting through CAP and AA to make the hit)


Also, a certain level of experience would be required to do the 2nd Attack. Since Kamikazes should be limited in experience anyway, it should only be the higher level pilots (i.e., those that managed to get through more than the bare minimum of training) that were the 'good' Kamikazes.

Maybe there should even be a separate mode of training?

1. Regular combat training teaches you...
a) Flying Skills
b) Combat training (different manoevers, tactics for your aircraft, etc..)

2. Kamikaze training teaches you...
a) Basic Flying Skills (how to take off and point your aircraft)

When you train a squadron you choose which type it will be (Kamikaze or Regular). You cannot make a Kamikaze a Regular squadron, but you can make a Regular a Kamikaze squadron.

Kamikaze squadrons cannot engage in air to air combat, and effectively limit the aircraft to a flying bomb. They can train up to a certain maximum experience that would be comparatively low even with IJAAF and IJNAF 1945 standards.

I do believe these pilots should have massively high morale. However, if you switch over a veteran air group, their morale should probably drop. Even in 1945 these groups were still getting positive kill ratios, and would probably not look to kindly in being ordered to stop their honourable fighting and give up their lives for the destruction of just one target (when they can better serve continuing being a pilot and shooting down many targets).

[wpurdom]

I would hope there would be a player-controllable variable or variables for this, since one of the more interesting what if's is what if the Japanese deployed their kamikazes earlier. At a minimum, the editor ought to be able to control some of the factors governing kamikaze deployment, since I'm sure we all have different ideas about what would be reasonable here.
Are players interested in controlling this?
Should there be a victory point cost to the Japanese to initiating kamikaze's?
Should there be a time control or an Allied victory point control or some other system?

[mdiehl]

I think there comes a point when so many variables are built in with questionably accurate models that a good idea bogs down in the cogs and wheels of its own complexity.

I'd be happy with a game that actually produced decent air and naval combat sims, never mind all the business about substantially revamping history.

I felt the trigger events in GGPW for Kamikazes were appropriate.

The only things I'd jigger (other than fixing the air to air sim, and the IJN uber Allies naval combat syndrome, particularly the fantasy about the potency of the Type 93a) would be deployments. Any game that begins prior to December 1941 or that begins in December 1941 but starts with anything *other* than the PH raid should give the Allies substantial opportunities to redeploy assets either at set-up or during the protracted interval of peace prior to any Japanese assault on the west.

[Charles2222]

From a book (Excerpts of The History of the Second World War)I have at home, they listed the air capabilities for Operation Olympic. According to it the Allies had 9,000 planes, while the Japanese had 5,350 conventional and 5350 kamikaze aircraft.

[Raverdave]

Just wondering if any of the Matrix staff would like to comment on this question? "Are Kamikaze attacks going to be modelled in WiTP"?

[Mike Wood]

Hello...

Yes, Kamikaze missions are planned. No details, yet, as to how they might work.

Bye...

Michael Wood
__________________________________________________

Originally posted by Raverdave
Just wondering if any of the Matrix staff would like to comment on this question? "Are Kamikaze attacks going to be modelled in WiTP"?

[Raverdave]

Thankyou for the reply mike. This should add an interesting dimension to the game play.