WWII Forums Quiz Part VII

[skunk works]

hint ?

During Okinawa the Japanese scored in 1 out of 9 Kamikaze attempts and damaged 250 ships. They expected to score 1 out of 6 in Ketsu Go, and "sink" 400 ships (this time they were going to go for the "transport ships", avoiding combat ships and trying to kill as many as possible) before they could unload....in mass.

Their position on shore were deep enough to avoid the original bombardment, but close enough to prevent any consolidation/organization necessary before a coordinated attack could commence. More than double of what U.S. intelligence estimated.

Kyushu had 25% of the remaining Japanese troops, and 40% of the remaining ammunition.

[Slipdigit]

a Butt-load of divisions. That is about as close as I can get.

wasn't it around 11,000 aircraft of all types?

[skunk works]

10,700 is the number I had.

14 divisions, 3 tank battalions, 5 Regiment sized combat teams of all kinds. This does not include the civilians conscripted, men/women 15-60.

close enough, your go.

[scarface]

Originally Posted by skunk works

10,700 is the number I had.

14 divisions, 3 tank battalions, 5 Regiment sized combat teams of all kinds. This does not include the civilians conscripted, men/women 15-60.

close enough, your go.

Interesting sidenote. According to Wikipedia, the Army estimated 5,911 (they didn't include training aircaraft - only combat aircraft). The Navy estimated 10,290 (they DID include training aircraft).

Allied reevaluation of Olympic

Air threat

U.S. military intelligence initially estimated the number of Japanese aircraft to be around 2,500.[21] .... Gradually, intelligence learned that the Japanese were devoting all their aircraft to the kamikaze mission and taking effective measures to conserve them until the battle. An Army estimate ... in August, 5,911. A Navy estimate, abandoning any distinction between training and combat aircraft ... in August, 10,290.[22]

Different perspectives based upon different experiences.

The Army appears to have been concerned with the airplanes they would have to fight.

The Navy (rightly) appears to have been concerned about any aircraft that could slam into a ship.

-whatever

-Lou

[skunk works]

I read wiki and operation Downfall.
Operation Downfall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My source was "the Pacific War" by Daniel Marston

[scarface]

I certainly wasn't questioning your source or your data.

Wikipedia is WAAAAAY down the list of reliable sources..... it's just so darn EASY (and therein lies the danger!)

No, I was just interested in the juxtaposition of the Army estimate vs. the Navy estimate.

-whatever

-Lou

[skunk works]

Understood

Sources differ, and so do ideologies as to what constitutes an effective kamikaze.
The use of the planes in mass scared me. AA gunners/fighters would be unable to pick up/distinguish differences/remove all threats and just by shear mass, some would have to succeed. Turning the entire invasion into a "Cluster ...k.
Like stepping on ants, you never get them all.
The whole business would have degenerated quickly into, what most probably would have been a Nuclear Holocaust.
If the invasion would've went off as planned, things would've gone poorly. Pusan/Singapore/Bataan/Waterloo, and then the "Trump" card.
Did you read 7 were ready and the U.S. was going to go into those areas 48 hrs later ? God knows how close they were going to be when they fell, and I doubt "goggles" would've been enough protection.

Death on death.

It's good some things work out better than they could have.

I like the "Don't believe the everything you think"

[Slipdigit]

Okay, since we are talking about kamikazes, I'll try to ask this question so it can be understood and return the answer I am looking for.

As far as tactics of kamikazes are concerned, what did the Japanese do incorrectly that prevented a higher incidence of successful strikes on US ships and what could they have done to increase their effectiveness in this endeavor?

[skunk works]

Less Sake ?

[Skipper]

They used individuals instead of sending large waves of kamikazes on the same targets.

[T. A. Gardner]

First, the pilots needed to be briefed on what to actually target. Bypassing pickets would have helped. Flying at very low levels to avoid radar might help too.

Second, the pilots should have been instructed in the best tactics to use. For carriers for example a low level curving attack pattern would have been best. Aiming for the hanger bay would also have increased effectiveness. Against other ships a pop up attack ending in a steep dive into the ship would have been best. If altitude was to be used then the pilots should have been instructed to gain as much altitude as possible 25 to 30,000 feet or more whenever practical.

Timing attacks would also help. Having strikes arrive on target at dawn coming out of the sun would have cut down both response time and ability to target attackers. Other possibilities are morning or evening nautical twilight (ie the sun has gone down but sufficent light remains to see the target) or sunset for the same reasons as sunrise. This would have been particularly true for Oka rockets. These were literally unstoppable once launched as they moved too fast for the Mk 38 fire control system to track.

Another tactic would be to "stack" attackers vertically and horizontally. That is, have them come in in say, groups of 4 to 8 stacked 4 to 6 deep and 4 to 6 back along the attack track. As the target is approached the stacked attackers initiate attacks vertically and horizontally while the depth vectors in on several approaches nearly simultaneously. This would overwhelm the AA defenses as well as the CAP.

[TA152]

My guess would be a lack of training for the pilots who flew most of the missions. Most could not navigate or identify ships from the air and attacked the first thing they saw, which was usually the radar picket ships.

Also a lack of fighter cover from experienced pilots made the poorly trained pilots sitting ducks for US Navy fighters.

[Slipdigit]

You hit it closest, Terry and Skipper. Coordinating attacks such that 4 or more were aimed at an individual ship at the same time. Individual anti-aircraft fire control could not direct fire at more than 4 targets at one time. The Japanese failed to swamp a single target ship (most of time, picket DDs excluded) such that the ships had a far easier time shooting down diving aircraft than they would have had multiple aircraft made their runs at the same time.

The root of this failure falls back on the profound lack or training, due in no small part of the catastrophic successes of the US submarine service in sinking Japanese tankers.

Y'all can fight over who asks the next Q.

[skunk works]

You best pick "one" Slip, or Professional courtesy may last for a millennium.

[Slipdigit]

Originally Posted by skunk works

You best pick "one" Slip, or Professional courtesy may last for a millennium.

Okay Skip, you're up to bat.

[fer-de-lance]

These were literally unstoppable once launched as they moved too fast for the Mk 38 fire control system to track.

You meant the Mk37? The Mk38 was the main battery director on BB's and cruisers.

The Mk1A computer on the WWII version of the Mk37 could theoretically deal with targets traveling at 400kt, but that was too slow for dealing with the "Ohka". The Mk56 director could theoretically deal with targets over 630kt and lead angles up to 30 deg. But this director and the associated 3-in 50 automatic guns firing VT fused shells at 50rpm arived too late to see action in WWII.

[skunk works]

How soon before we can "bump" a non-responding winner ?
What length of time before he's considered MIA ?
I think we need an amendment to the Quiz constitution.
...............Limbo.................

suggestion ?

3-days

[Slipdigit]

3 days sound good to me.

[skunk works]

OK

3-days is up

during the war..............

What place went from total obscurity to the size of Dallas Texas (at that time), and then back to almost total obscurity a little over six months later ?

[Slipdigit]

I'm thinking some type of military installation, but have no idea beyond that.

Maybe Tinian?