Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
Do or Die
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by youngjerry (U7266788) on Friday, 2nd July 2010
Were the Japanese Hari Kari pilots against American warships an act of bravery or stupidity?
(The last act of a desperate nation perhaps? Did it do any good for the Japanese war effort? -
Message 2
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Friday, 2nd July 2010
youngjerry
probably not a lot
it was one of the things that convinced the usa that invading the homeland would be a bit costly and dropping the bomb was the better way out
st -
Message 3
Posted by AlexanderLiberty (U14397753) on Saturday, 3rd July 2010
It wasn't "Hara Kiri" (Seppuku in Japanese) because it wasn't a suicide for dishonor but a form of sacrifice.
I prefer the British pragmatism and the result of war it's a proof abd my answer to your question.
Cry - God for Harry! England and Saint George! - Henry V, iii, William Shakespeare -
Message 4
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Saturday, 3rd July 2010
'With inky blots and rotten parchment bonds,
That England that was wont to conquer others, hath made a shameful conquest of itself.'
Good old Bard, always ready with a pithy quote. -
Message 5
Posted by rhmnney (U14528380) on Saturday, 3rd July 2010
The Japanese suicide pilots were eager to sacrifice their lives for their Emperor and country, not all who took the flights reached their targets. On an American documentary there was a Japanese pilot who had engine trouble while on flight and was told to land at a near by island (they had no or little landing skills) and crashed but recovered, he regretted all his life that he was unable to give his life for his Emperor and country. Some got sick appendicitis and such, all genuine illnesses, they gave interviews but all were sorry they had been unable to take part.
Incidentally the British carriers were able to stay longer in combat with the Kamikaze attacks before breaking off engagement as their flight decks were steel. The American carriers with their wood flight decks were highly inflammable, and added would be the remaining fuel from the Japanese aircraft igniting.
Many were shot out of the sky before reaching their targets but the few that got through did considerable damage, so it was a toss up a greater number of planes may have evened out the conflict. Not forgetting the vast ocean the Americans had to cover to even get close to the conflict. I well remembering when watching a documentary regarding the Pacific war when it was mentioned that the Americans were only 700 miles from Japan. Think of 700 miles in Europe what a difference, granted they were talking of sea miles but there was still the danger of submarines in addition of surface craft, and very bad storms far greater than those experienced in European waters.
Not forgetting the Pacific war was the poor cousin to the Americans regarding supplies and those fighting in the Pacific were the last to get them except for the long range bombers needed over vast distances. The Atlantic theater had to wait for those sorely needed bombers, as only then was the Battle of the Atlantic won, regardless of the claims if both nation's Navies. -
Message 6
Posted by Sabre_Wulf (U14555883) on Friday, 16th July 2010
Was it not the case that by that stage of the war the anti-air capability of warships was so great that the chances of surviving were so small it was almost a suicide mission already?
So send barely trained pilots in flying bombs and save your trained pilots for air to air combat where they could make a difference? -
Message 7
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Friday, 16th July 2010
Early in the war, a Fleet Air Arm pilot did just the same. He was dying and crashed his aircraft on to a German cruiser.
-
Message 8
Posted by rhmnney (U14528380) on Friday, 16th July 2010
GF, seeing those slow biplanes take on all those barrages, flying directly to the broadside of the ship to release their torpedoes must have had nerves of steel, at the time I thought of it as a suicide mission. However I don't believe they were on the same dedicated mission as the Japanese, as they were determined to die in the effort with no chance of returning and there were many of them. On American PBS TV, (quasi government educational system, although also non-commercial general entertainment). saw the Kamikazi documentary a number of times. Take out the myths, as some of those who participated were alive when the documentary was produced, and took part in it with their experiences and thoughts.
-
Message 9
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Friday, 16th July 2010
GF,
I'm assuming that incident must have been part of the action against the Konigsberg early on during the war? The planes used were Skua's flown from Scotland rather than a carrier if it is the same action. I cannot think of many other similar incidents.
Regards
vf -
Message 10
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Friday, 16th July 2010
VF, yes that was the one. A strange fact on the Japanese attacks though. It seems the man who suggested the whole idea and offered to lead the attacks never did, and survived the war. By the end of the war, mosr of the pilots had received really just enough training to lift their planes off the ground and fly it in a straight line. (Thus making them sitting ducks)The Japanese didn't really have the fuel to train even the pilots tasked with attacking the bombers, never mind the ones on a one way trip.
GF -
Message 11
Posted by rhmnney (U14528380) on Friday, 16th July 2010
VF, I'm not an authority on the subject but what I saw I believe the aircraft were, Fairy-Swordfish? Very frail looking biplanes, plus slow aircraft. Believe it was an Italian warship, damaged the ship's rudder. Its claimed because of that action the Japanese realized that surface vessels were very venerable targets to aircraft attack, as the British were to find out with the two warships sent to the far east without air cover.
-
Message 12
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Friday, 16th July 2010
VF, yes that was the one. A strange fact on the Japanese attacks though. It seems the man who suggested the whole idea and offered to lead the attacks never did, and survived the war. By the end of the war, mosr of the pilots had received really just enough training to lift their planes off the ground and fly it in a straight line. (Thus making them sitting ducks)The Japanese didn't really have the fuel to train even the pilots tasked with attacking the bombers, never mind the ones on a one way trip.Β
Cheers for that GF,I was wracking my brains for the right action/incident.I did think about the attack on the German Navy at Keil very early on but was pretty certain that it was undertaken by the RAF with Blenhiems.From what I can remember reading it was a really fierce action against a well defended target with many casualties.I think that the whole "Kamikaze" plan shows just how desperate things had become for the Japanese.As you point out they lacked flying hours therefore it was even more wasteful as the pilots odds of actually completing their mission were low.I always think of the Yamato,just enough fuel to get to the target area and no more.Yet the plan was completely futile,there was not a cat in hells chance of that ship getting anywhere near the US fleet.Bravery or rank stupidity? I suppose there is a fine line between the two sometimes.
Incidentally the British carriers were able to stay longer in combat with the Kamikaze attacks before breaking off engagement as their flight decks were steel. The American carriers with their wood flight decks were highly inflammable, and added would be the remaining fuel from the Japanese aircraft ignitingΒ
There is a huge debate about the British carriers and there flight decks.Modern American naval history buffs are extremely scathing about the armoured deck principle the basis of their arguments being that
1)if they had a decent airgroup they wouldnt need
the armoured deck in the first place
2)The armoured deck was essentially the "strength deck" of the hull and that it was incredibly difficult to repair.
3) Post war,only HMS Victorious was modernised for the jet age (at huge cost and was a protracted affair taking 7 years)HMS Illustrious ended up as a training carrier capable of only 22knots due to the damage she suffered during the war.HMS Formidible had a similar story,and was considered beyond economic repair.HMS Indomitable suffered a massive internal fire post war and was also laid up.All three of these were scrapped in the 50's.HMS Implacable and Indefatigable were scrapped after the RN's experience of trying to modernise HMS Victorious.
4)The American carriers although heavily damaged were still able to sail home for repair and were not structurally compremised.
I would argue that in some cases they have a point,considering the size of the Illustrious class their aircraft capacity was small compared to say USS Enterprise.However I think that its important to recognise that the RN ships did remain on station and were able to continue flight operations.The US also had large numbers of carriers and could afford to send them home for refit.If the RN had sent there carriers home,then the British Pacific fleet would have consisted of Battleships and cruisers.
On points 2 and 3 I think that it must be remembered that Britain was bankrupt and lacked the funds.She also was getting her monies worth from the new "Collossus" class Light Fleet Carriers and had Ark Royal and Eagle ready so was their any point in reparing these ships in any case? HMS Victorious IMHO was one of the most beautiful ships the RN ever had in the fleet but I would argue that its always a false economy to try and squeeze "new wine into old bottles".The money would have been better spent on a new ship. America,with her vast wealth could afford to modernise the Essex class (which was a latter and larger design than the Illustrious class) money was not a problem.
All in all I think the British carriers fought a hard fight and all of them survived to the end.Which in my honest opinion is not a bad epitaph.
Vf -
Message 13
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Friday, 16th July 2010
VF, I'm not an authority on the subject but what I saw I believe the aircraft were, Fairy-Swordfish? Very frail looking biplanes, plus slow aircraft. Believe it was an Italian warshipΒ
I think you are thinking about the action against the Bismarck.She was torpedoed by Swordfish from HMS Ark Royal in May 1941.They managed to score a hit in the Bismarcks stern which jammed the rudders at an angle that left her unmanouverable.You are right,the Swordfish did look frail,but Im sure Ive read somewhere that in actual fact,they were quite a tough old bird.
Albacores (which dont look disimilar to Swordfish) did torpedo the Italian battleship Vittorio Vento but she still managed to escape.Out of the two actions the Bismarck episode is by far the more famous and is often the subject of TV documentries whereas you will only read about the Vittorio Vento attack in books. -
Message 14
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Friday, 16th July 2010
Wasn't there that famous message after a British carrier operating with the US fleet was struck. Message was on the lines of "What assistance do you require?" Answer. "More brooms."
-
Message 15
Posted by rhmnney (U14528380) on Saturday, 17th July 2010
Unsure where I heard it, but it claimed that a bomb delivered to a target by the airplane would do more damage than one dropped with just slight speed gained by gravity. (how? I absolutely have no idea). A friend who was in the US Navy in the Pacific, engine room staff, during attacks he was a loader of the fast firing guns, three or four shells in a clip, ( I forget the number) although of large build and very athletic said it soon wore you down with the speed of replacing the fired shells.
The kamikaze attacks did grave damage to the American fleets and was not viewed lightly. Fire power was enormous but planes did get through and did considerable damage.
Regarding the British carrier decks to the American, the American wood deck was the greatest flaw in their carrier design, very easily damaged and great fuel for fires, damaged decks makes it difficult for planes to take off and land. Granted, the arguments will continue. i believe the British carrier decks were designed to stand attacks from ships shells and they did hold up well against Japanese attacks, and allegedly could stay in action longer. Desk admirals often forget its the battle that dictates the outcome. (well laid plans of mice and men). In all the Japanese people were ready to fight to the last. My cousin a POW, (Singapore) in Japan when going to work in the morning to the shipyard would see the civilian population training with spears of many materials to repel any attack from the sea, women and children in the groups.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.