BPF Aug 15, 1945

"???????????"
Here once again is the link to the Navweaps essay for those who haven't read it.
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-030.htm

 

A kamikaze hit on a US carrier was did not necessarily mean that the ship suffered severe damage. US ships were also capable of shaking of kamikazw damage and returning to operations quickly.
As many have pointed out, the US fleet came under far larger and sustained kamikaze attacks than did the British fleet.

 

Yeah, so this debate shall rage on!

 

And on and on and on and on and on and on with only a tea-break to slow it down.

 

"US ships were also capable of shaking of kamikazw damage and returning to operations quickly."
Carriers????????

April-May1945:
All the British armored-deck carriers were hit by Kamikazes; the USN was impressed with how they could maintain their position in the operational line; Admiral Spruance requested that the British CV's be the ones to strike at the Formosa airfields where it was believed the most effective Kamikaze units were based, since the British carriers would be less vulnerable than their less well-protected counterparts in the USN.......as poor Hancock was put out of action by such a hit.

Magnificent ship design the Illustrious class and variants!

 

"All the British armored-deck carriers were hit by Kamikazes"
That's not a great selling point. But actually there was one that eluded the kamikazes. Implacable? She showed up too late to get hit.

 

It was said during WW2 that if an American carrier took a kamikaze hit, it meant six months' repairs in Pearl Harbor; when a British carrier took such a hit, it was "Sweepers, man your brooms!" Exageration? Perhaps. But how much of one?

 

Pretty big one. US carriers also shrugged off kamikaze damage, and the RN carriers weren't as untouched as popular belief would like you to think.
The big exaggeration was that a kamikaze hit on a US carrier meant it was out of action.

 

Yeah.

 

And yet, several American carriers were hit and badly damaged by kamikazes; ENTERPRISE, SARATOGA, BUNKER HILL, and INTREPID are the ones I can recall right off the top of my head. Which British carriers were so badly damaged that they had to withdraw for extensive repairs?

 

I don't understand the military reasoning behind Kamikaze Attacks... aren't bombs cheaper than aircraft, even when most miss; as well as having the added bonus of not losing a trained pilot... The only possible reasoning i see is desperation and perhaps Samurai culture (death is glory), then again the Germans did it too towards the end of the war although they aways bailed out

 

"Which British carriers were so badly damaged that they had to withdraw for extensive repairs?"
American carriers were better at resisting kamikaze attacks. British carriers were better at resisting kamikaze damage. Nevertheless, the only fleet carrier that never recovered from kamikaze damage was British.

"I don't understand the military reasoning behind Kamikaze Attacks"
I would not use the term "samurai culture" because the ethos was more pervasive than that. The suicide death was in fact an end in itself. If you read Ugaki's diary, you can see his sense of envy toward (for example) the midget sub crews at Pearl Harbor, whose mission was understood to be likely fatal. This was long before the kamikazes and long before the sense of desperation. On a more practical level, most kamikazes were "trained pilots" only in a generous application of the word "trained." At that point, losses of planes and pilots were accepted as inevitable (Marianas Turkey Shoot!), so the suicide dive became simply the surest way to deliver hits. Why the leadership failed to recognize the futility of their situation and spare the lives of their young men is a testimony to denial.

 

The difference between US & UK carriers and their reaction to Kamikazies seems to be:

US Carriers: can put up a better defence (CAP and AA) but if they are hit they are often too damaged to continue flying operations. However, repairs are relatively quick & easy (a sopt of re-planking)

UK Carriers: Put up a lesser defence, but can coninue flying operations once hit (after being swept clean ). However, a hit will often impose structural damage that will require a long and costly stay in the dockyard.

Is that about correct?

 

Repairs on US ships like Enterprise and Bunker Hill were sometimes very expensive and time-consuming.
American ships had an additional asset in their much greater strike capability, which would allow them to eliminate many kamikazes on the ground.

 

On a purely quantative level, the kamikaze attacks inflicted more casulties then conventional attacks would have, actually, as Tiornu noted, given the quality of the pilots, conventional attacks would probably have inflicted very little damage at all.

Recent evidence (Check Frank's Downfall for details) show the Japan's leaders believed till the very end that inflicting maximum casulties on the US would lead to concessions at the peace table (Some evidence indicates they were delusional enough that they thought they could avoid occupation). Kamikaze's would both add to the casulties and psychologically show how hard Japan was willing to fight.

 

Also, this way the Japanese found what to do with their obsolete planes and since they were more than willing to die for their country...

 

The damage inflicted on US carriers was sometimes very extensive, requiring lengthy and expensive repairs way back in the USA. I'm not trying to downplay the damage done to US carriers by kamikazes, I would simply like to address the misconception that ANY kamikaze hit on a US carrier resulted in massive damage, and that British carriers never suffered any ill effects from kamikazes.

The Special Attack Corps was born out of desparation, the Japanese knew that most planes attacking the US fleet would be lost, with little or no chance of inflicting any damage on the Americans. At this point the thinking was that if the plane and pilot was going to be lost anyway, they might as well try to take some of the enemy with them.

 

Some interesting stuff here - note opening pic -

http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Ships/BPF/Britishpacificfleethomepage.html

 

Clicked wrong option again :roll: