Slightly OT: kamikazes

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Slightly OT: kamikazes

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Slightly OT: kamikazes

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Slightly OT: kamikazes - 3/8/2003 9:26:17 PM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

I'm doing some research on kamikaze pilots, and I'm wondering if anyone can direct me to the most authoritative sources on them.

Also: are they modeled in WITP?

Post #: 1

- 3/9/2003 1:29:01 AM

Full Moon

Posts: 201
Joined: 1/25/2003
From: Texas
Status: offline

I'm not sure if you're looking for Internet resource or paper resource. For books try these

The Divine Wind: Japan's Kamikaze Force in World War II
by Rikihei Inoguchi, et al
published by United States Naval Inst., 1994.

Kamikaze: Japan's Suicide Gods
by Albert Axell, Hideaki Kase
published by Longman, 2002.

The Kamikazes
by Edwin Palmer Hoyt
published by Burford Books, 1999.

_____________________________

"War is a series of catastrophes that results in a victory."
Georges Clemenceau

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 2

- 3/9/2003 6:22:41 AM

Raverdave

Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline

And also this book:-

"Kamikaze, Japan's Suicide Samurai"
Raymond Lamont-Brown
ISBN 0-304-35200-4

_____________________________

Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 3

- 3/9/2003 4:41:48 PM

Howard Mitchell

Posts: 449
Joined: 6/3/2002
From: Blighty
Status: offline

How about 'I was a Kamikaze' by Ryuji Nagatsuka, ISBN 450 01927 6.

I have an ancient paperback copy printed in 1973.

_____________________________

While the battles the British fight may differ in the widest possible ways, they invariably have two common characteristics � they are always fought uphill and always at the junction of two or more map sheets.

General Sir William Slim

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 4

Re: Slightly OT: kamikazes - 3/9/2003 7:56:25 PM

Raverdave

Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Grotius
[B].

Also: are they modeled in WITP? [/B][/QUOTE]

My understanding is that they are modelled in WiTP, there was a longish thread about it in the WiTP forums.

_____________________________

Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 5

- 3/10/2003 3:52:06 AM

wesy

Posts: 224
Joined: 2/10/2002
From: Berkeley, CA
Status: offline

When my wife and I went to Japan (we also took along my parents who have friends over there) we met one of my Dad's friends - he was a "retired" kamikaze pilot...luckily war ended before he had to fly his mission. I wish I had a chance to actually talk to the guy.

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 6

- 3/11/2003 9:41:19 AM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

Those are just the sort of references I was looking for: authoritative sources in print. Thanks, everyone.

By the way, just why were kamikazes so effective? I assume (1) planes are easier to aim than bombs (witness September 11), and (2) a plane, with its gas tanks etc., is a huge bomb (again witness September 11).

I'm also curious what the AAR in WITP will look like for kamikazes. (OK, I know I should be posting this part in the WITP forum; apologies.) Something like:

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 07/18/45

Weather: Clear

Air attack on TF, near Okinawa

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 25
A6M3 Zero x 5
D3A Val x 34
B5N Kate x 34

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 25 destroyed
A6M3 Zero x 5 destroyed
D3A Val x 34 destroyed
B5N Kate x 34 destroyed

Allied Ships
CV Enterprise, Kamikaze hits 15, on fire, heavy damage

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 7

- 3/11/2003 6:00:34 PM

Mike_B20

Posts: 389
Joined: 2/13/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

:D

...or maybe,

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 25
A6M3 Zero x 5
D3A Val x 34
B5N Kate x 34

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero x 25 destroyed
A6M3 Zero x 5 destroyed
D3A Val x 34 destroyed
B5N Kate x 34 destroyed

Allied Ships
CV Enterprise, Kamikaze hits 15, vaporized

_____________________________

Never give up, never surrender

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 8

- 3/11/2003 6:12:53 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

Hi Grotus

By the way, just why were kamikazes so effective

were they ?, now they hit a lot of ships, yes, the scared the crap out of a lot of people, but were they effective ? not really

they hit a lot of picket ships, kind of a waste to try and crash 2 or 3 planes into a LCI, you had a few that did hit something importent, but for every one that was hit, there were what, 20 more that weren't

the main shock or fame of the Kamikaze is that they took off knowing there were dead, now that is HARD for most of us to believe that someone could do that (history channel had a good talk with some fighter pilots and what it took to be one, and one guy said about the alt you had, you knew the other guy was gonna die, not you, and he brings up that if there was a mission planning, and the 100 guys in the room were told that 99 of them would not be coming back, you would just look around the room and think to yourself, oh, them poor SOB's, you knew you were coming back)

as for the part about aimming, well it is easyer with a plane, with bombs, you got your aim point and your release point and your pull out point, with a plane, you don't have to worry about the last two, just keep the first one in mind

of course, the fighters and AA boys, have other things on there mind too, like how to kill you

HARD_Sarge

_____________________________

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 9

why are kamakaze's effective??? - 3/12/2003 1:07:49 AM

elcid

Posts: 226
Joined: 11/20/2002
From: Lakewood Washington
Status: offline

Actually, the Kamakaze is the nightmare of the Navy, even today.

NO EFFECTIVE DEFENSE was ever devised - and I served on a SAM ship that never failed to hit a target in more than 100 launches - even without warheads - and even in combat (a quite exceptional performance when you consider the USN averaged 60 firings per hit in those days).

The first reason the Kamakaze is effective is that he is human, and unpredictable. He can "jink" which may make your fire control solution (WWII "predictor") solution worthless.

The second reason the Kamakaze is effective is more bang for each hit. The plane does not have to go home, so it does not carry gas for that purpose. So it can carry more payload, and the Japanese actually did that, big time. SO you get more explosives PLUS the plane itself and any remaining fuel ALL going off at once - and remember FIRE is the big enemy of ships.

The Kamakaze raids off Okinawa did tend to get picket ships - because we put them out there for that reason. The life of a picket on the north station off Okinawa was measured in hours, and it was an expensive tactic on our part.

Limitations on Kamakazes were mainly due to inexperienced pilots. When flown by vets they were awfully deadly. Other limitations were due to using obsolescent aircraft, which were available, but not really very fast by contemporary standards, even less so when overloaded.

The Kamakaze first appeared east of Luzon in the battle of the Philippine Sea (if I remember right), flown by true volunteers because they were not succeeding in conventional tactics. But Kamakaze tactics were not invented then, nor were they unique to the Japanese. See Col. Doolittle's recommendation to his pilots during his raid briefing, about what to do if the plane is damaged. "For myself, I would pick the fattest target I could find, and dive my plane into it." It appears a Japanese officer did that at Pearl, diving into a hanger after taking damage. It is hard to argue it is not effective, and heroic, and one need not be stupid to think of it.

There was a Japanese suicide "missile" code named "Baka" ("fool" in Japanese) which did not have much chance to get used, but which was being built in land, air, sea and submarine versions. Using rocket propulsion, some variants were quite fast, and we were very impressed (if we don't often admit it). Overloaded bombers delivering them were easily shot down, but designed to purpose bombers were a different matter. These may be said to have inspired US and Russian anti-shipping cruise missile experiments, using radar guidance instead of human pilots, of course. But a cruise missile does not jink, and so it is much easier to predict than a Kamakaze is. We STILL write papers on what to do when we encounter an enemy willing to do that Kamakaze thing, and the consensus is we will STILL be in trouble!

Former Navy ET(R) who crossed over to Electronic Warfare for Anti-Air Warfare slightly before the Navy created the Electronic Warfare specialty.

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 10

- 3/12/2003 4:56:36 AM

Howard Mitchell

Posts: 449
Joined: 6/3/2002
From: Blighty
Status: offline

One of the reasons Kamikaze raids were difficult to defeat was a change in Japanese tactics. At the Philippine Sea and before they had attacked in large waves which were easy to detect on radar, allowing CAP to be placed to comprehensively defeat them. Later in the war they switched to using a multitude of smaller raids which sometimes overwhelmed the ability of the radar operators to make sense of their radar picture. This is one of the neatest examples I have heard of of attacking the totality of an enemy weapon system (radar/radio communication /CAP in this case) at its weakest link.

_____________________________

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 11

- 3/12/2003 7:17:23 AM

Raverdave

Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline

For those of you interested, I have bumped the "old" thread on this topic in the WiTP forum.

_____________________________

Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 12

- 3/12/2003 12:59:23 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

Hi Elcid
well, as you say, in a trained and skilled plane, it is very dangerous, but the fact was, that was the end of JP airpower (just as the Banzai attack, was worthless, once it started running against trained troops, the JP had given up and the battle was over, time to die a death with honor, instead of digging in and fighting till the last, which they did towards the end, and even then, unless they were very well trained, most just killed themselfs, again, not the idea)

the number of planes and pilots lost, for the number of ships damaged or sunk, we would of sunk ten times that number, if not more, and still of had a force left (but, we had trained men, they didn't, so they ordered them to die instead)

still, the use of them, only meant that the High Command, had already given up, that the war was over, but they would not surrender, so lets die a honorable death, so what if everyone under us has to die first

the pickets was bad duty, but was needed, that was the early warning system

strange to hear how you felt about your type of duty, as a Grunt, one of our worse fears is the tank, but I was trained to kill tanks, knew what it could and couldn't do, where to do the most damage to and how to get away from it

remember as a Sgt, had a Cpl from the NCO school giving a class on tank combat, and he smarted off and said to forget it, your dead if you see one, got up and told him to get out of the room, his class was over, then we gave our own class, odds are, the tank is going to win, but you never give up

HARD_Sarge

_____________________________

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 13

the reason for the tactic - 3/12/2003 3:05:21 PM

elcid

Posts: 226
Joined: 11/20/2002
From: Lakewood Washington
Status: offline

Hard Sarge:

The kamakaze tactic was adopted because conventional air strikes were no longer delivering ordnance to the target. The US and UK had devised a rather effective "layered" defense system of long range CAP, close in CAP, heavy AAA, and "revenge" short range AAA sytems, all coordinated by search radar and enhanced by fire control radar systems. The defensive fighters were used to break up the raids, and strung out raids were easier for AA systems to cope with. The Japanese DID attack the radar tactically - but not so much by smaller raids as by passive use of radar recievers to track our task forces, either evading them or locating them. Note that the Japanese achieved TACTICAL surprise, almost 'reading the mind' of the US commander, because they could track his emissions. [To this day US naval surface forces are very noisy, and ECM guys preach in vein this is going to be a problem some day. A US ship even reports bearing and range automatically to 400 planes per second if they bother to ask - via TACAN!] The Kamakaze tactic was long considered and refused by the high command. And the high command itself participated - witness the fate of Admiral Ukagi, successor of Yamamoto as CIC Combined Fleet. In assessing effectiveness, one needs to count damaged ships. Ships badly damaged and withdrawn for a long time are almost as good as ships sunk.

The modern situation is much more dangerous for the ships. An enemy can use nuclear weapons, which blind our radars and lookouts, and are nasty even if they score a near miss. But organizing an attack on a moving task force is not very easy. The Argentines made a critical mistake when they put a carrier in strike range of the British Task Force Falklands, undetected. They achieved it on the first try, just like in exercises, and thought they could "do it again tomarrow" when the wind would permit triple the bomb load. Tomarrow never came: that night Belgrano sank and de Mayo's boilers failed. Vietnamese attacks produced almost no results. But note that Mi-6 HELICOPTERS were able to deliver ordnance against 4 surface ships, two of them modern missile combattants! The Viets failing was not to try to saturate - they always tried small attacks you would consider to be one flight. The one time the Args sent an Exocet in and followed it with a flight of Skyhawks, they delivered - even though the Exocet was shot down by a 4.5 inch gun. If Russian saturation tactics are ever properly organized, it will be hard to stop them all. But our nightmare is a suicide pilot in a civilian airliner. We don't defend against them! Most of the time, if there is 'no threat' our weapons and associated fire control systems are not manned or warmed up. USS Stark was hit by an Exocet not even fired at her. She had THREE weapons able to shoot it down and ECM that could have defeated it, but NO weapon was able to bear on the threat axis and NO weapon was manned or ready and NO ONE was monitoring ECM for an electronic defense.

We were not taught to give up the ship until it was sinking, and when boarded, the deck crew of USS Pueblo threw the boarders into the sea, without orders, such was standard Navy training. The real life incident on which Under Siege seems to have been based involved ordinary sailors, not ex-SEALS, and three times as many boarders as in the movie - yet they won the day. In fact, many drills end with the loss of the ship, so you can learn how to do everything right up to abandon ship.

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 14

- 3/12/2003 8:42:43 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

Hi Elcid

In assessing effectiveness, one needs to count damaged ships. Ships badly damaged and withdrawn for a long time are almost as good as ships sunk

yes, and what I am saying, what was the total damaged shipping to that type of attack, and how many planes were lost mounting it

268, sticks out in my mind, but don't remember if that was for the "one big battle" or over all

plus, while they like to throw out the number of damaged/sunk ships gained by this type of attack, they also don't normally tell what kinds of ships were hit the most, not a great many Cap ships went down, pickets, LCI's, LCM's, hell have read where they dove on landing craft (I mean anything to hurt the bad guy, sure, but a higgins boat?)

I can go along with you on at the time they worked better then the old attack run, but they were not effective, the old type of attack couldn't be done any more because of training, but even with better training, and as you point out, how far along we had come in Fleet defence at the time, it still comes down to the fact that the JP Air Power was no longer Effective

parts you keep bringing up is like saying Level Bombing didn't work, but it works now, Kamakaze did not work then, but it could work now

it wasn't a war winning idea, it didn't prolong the war, it's didn't give the JP nation any bargining power at the peace table, and if anything, it helped to end the war faster then it could of taken

HARD_Sarge

_____________________________

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 15

- 3/12/2003 11:24:42 PM

color

Posts: 324
Joined: 7/24/2001
From: Oslo, Norway
Status: offline

Check out this article on the Kamikazes:
[URL=http://www.tcr.org/kamikaze.html]Article on Kamikaze pilots[/URL]

And this about the sinking of the carrier St. Lo, the first victim of organized kamikaze attacks
[URL=http://www.microworks.net/pacific/pictoral/stlo_sunk.htm]Sinking of St. Lo[/URL]

This is about when the carrier Essex took a kamikaze hit (along with three other carriers that same day) and the concerns and problems the Kamikazes generated.
[URL=http://www.airgroup4.com/book/indx/index12.htm]Essex hit by Kamikaze[/URL]

Here's a two engined bomber hitting the carrier Randolph
[URL=http://www.airgroup4.com/book/chapt-33.htm]kamikaze bomber hits Randolph[/URL]

This link details some of the losses to various suicide attacks
[URL=http://www.ww2pacific.com/suicide.html]Japanese suicide attacks in WW II[/URL]

while this links
[URL=http://users.pandora.be/dave.depickere/Text/kamikaze.html]Kamikazes[/URL]
claims that during the Philippines Campaign as a whole the Japanese sank 16 US vessels (two CVEs, three DDs, one DMS, and ten smaller vessels, including a PT-boat) and damaged another 87 (including seven CVs, two CVLs, thirteen CVEs, five BBs, three CAs, seven CLs, 23 DDs, five DEs, one DMS)

[Edit: Fixed bad links]

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 16

- 3/12/2003 11:45:48 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

Hi Color
thanks for the info

the bad part is I think it backs up what I am saying, other will say it backs up what they are saying :)

but thanks for the links, interesting

HARD_Sarge

_____________________________

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 17

we don't like to talk about this much - 3/13/2003 1:18:57 AM

elcid

Posts: 226
Joined: 11/20/2002
From: Lakewood Washington
Status: offline

Sarge:

What "peace table"? The Japanese tried to go to the table, but all initiatives, official and unofficial were blocked by the Russians or ignored by us - including some people like Dulles thought were promising. Japan's great success against Russia was in no small part due to the fact they entered the conflict with a war termination plan, something they did not have in 1941, and never devised. We did not negotiate the peace, we dictated it. By 1946 we changed our tune, and never completed the dismantling of the Finance Ministry (it still exists) or the Munitions Ministry (it changed names and still exists) or the Zaibatsu (all eight still exist) - due to Cold War political considerations - so we didn't quite end up implementing our plan, but we didn't consult with the Japanese about the end of the war - in 1945 or in 1946. And I submit no tactical initiative, effective or otherwise, taken in 1944 or later, was likely to change that outcome.

We don't like to admit it, but see James F. Dunnigan (game designer, author and Pentagon consultant) on the Kamakaze. It WAS effective, only one British armored carrier ever sluffed off its attacks, and it was not significantly directed against landing craft. Rather it sought to sink troop transports, which may have resulted in the appearance of "attacks" on landing craft when a damaged aircraft was unable to make his intended target. The attacks caused more than mere physical damage, and were terrifying for US sailors. The war ended before the problem was "solved" and it has yet to be "solved." And horizontal bombers became very effective once glide bombing and skip bombing were perfected - during the war - only one such attack is known to have been defeated (by Takishi Hara, if you believe his book, Japanese Destroyer Captain).

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 18

- 3/13/2003 2:12:27 AM

Mike_B20

Posts: 389
Joined: 2/13/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

Interesting links color, thanks.

The personal thoughts letters of the kamikazes and narratives of the US servicemen makes compelling reading.

I found the following information particularly interesting,

"25Mar45-21Jun45. Off Okinawa -- Ten "Kikusui", swarms of Kamikaze, up to 350 attackers at a time, 1,900 in total, damaged 250 ships with 34 destroyers and smaller ships sunk. Several ships were damaged so badly they were not repaired. One in seven of all naval causalities occurred off Okinawa. "

_____________________________

Never give up, never surrender

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 19

AEGIS - 3/13/2003 2:30:13 AM

SWODOG

Posts: 37
Joined: 5/9/2002
From: Atlanta, Georgia
Status: offline

I can say from experience that the fleet air defense capabilities of a modern US CVBG could easily deal with an kamikaze airliner. In the open ocean good luck finding the battle group and in a high threat littoral aor good luck even getting close. The SPY-1B and SPY-1D sytems protecting the sailors in the Gulf are incredible. The improved CIWS and RAM systems are much better than when Stark was hit. Not to mention the AEW aircraft and F-14/ FA-18 CAP. An attack in port might be feasible but I think it unlikely terrorists will ever take a US airliner hostage again. Not trying to be argumentative, I have a lot of friends onboard ships on the way to war and I'm confident that they have the best sytems and tactics available in the world.

former USN SWO/TAO and current Airline Pilot...

_____________________________

Don't worry about the mice when the elephants are stomping on your head...

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 20

I hate to rain on your perade, but... - 3/13/2003 8:08:49 AM

elcid

Posts: 226
Joined: 11/20/2002
From: Lakewood Washington
Status: offline

The US should learn from its historical defeats at the start of WWII in the Pacific, and at the hands of a poorly equiped People's Volunteer Army in Korea -- arrogance is dangerous!

The use of an airliner as a weapon could be done as a DECEPTION rather than as a hijacking. In that case "taking it over" is not an issue. And our ability to defeat EVERY use of cruise missiles from 1968 to 1972 in Viet Nam did not save Stark, even if she had better systems. [We designed the Phalanx, but she was not delivered for eleven years, and then only in the "war emergency" 20mm caliber, not the 30mm "peacetime" caliber we specified! Tests show the 20mm do NOT save the ship even when they work - the flaming mass STILL hits you!] Stark could not use her ECM or weapons because she didn't try. When you KNOW it is peacetime, you don't go to Condition I, II or III. I have seen Russian bombers run through an attack sequence, but the watch officer refused to change readiness - there was no way to tell they had not fired unless we tracked with fire control but, no, do not bring it up. As for finding a US task group, just use the TACAN interrogator on board every airliner and many warplanes - it provides bearing and range and identification in a fraction of a second. Not to mention modern airliners carry very nice modern radar, and they are now used as maritime search platforms in a number of nations. Then there are problems with rules of engagement - we actually shot down an airliner at least once - and captains are not going to be quick to do that again. The new PLAN and PLAAF doctrines focus on surprise attack, and they practice a number of forms of deception, some taught at USAF training exercises for the CHINESE during the Clinton Administration (in Alaska). We don't actually have a right to shoot down a plane that has not launched weapons or indicated a hostile intent. What if the plane itself if the weapon??? At what point do you conclude you need to engage it? And will you then have the time it takes? Only if you think it through very carefully ahead of time, without thinking your technology will save you - which it won't if you don't use it.

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 21

Parade is mispelled - 3/13/2003 9:00:49 AM

SWODOG

Posts: 37
Joined: 5/9/2002
From: Atlanta, Georgia
Status: offline

Eclid,
I'm not going to argue with an "expert" but reading your other posts you seem to base a lot of your information on dated examples. Since the EW rate was created in the mid 80's and I'm not sure how long ago you actually were at sea, I can't understand why you seem so certain that the US Navy has never learned a lesson from its past. The USN is much different today than it was in Viet Nam where much of the equipment was left over from WW2. Stark was attacked by a friendly aircraft, that was identified as friendly. Stark's CIWS was prepared to engage the incoming Exocet but was not given weapons release due to environmental conditions in the Gulf that often caused false alarms in the early software version. Stark's ESM SLQ32 V1 has no ability to jam an incoming missle. Ship TACAN's are never used in high threat environments. CV/CVN's routinely due full launch and recovery operations in total EMCON. AEGIS cruisers/destroyers can fire and guide their missles using co-operative engagement and never light off a single emitter. Finally, I fly brand new 737-800's that are less than two years old and I can assure you our "modern radar" could not locate a ship, TACAN is used by the military only and it would take a highly skilled pilot to hit a ship with a big lumbering airliner. Airline traffic routes are well established and a airliner behaving abnormally (post Sept. 11th) would be dealt with accordingly. My airline has repeatedly warned our flight crews of this. So flame away as I suspect you will, but I don't share your cynical attitude about my USN and I know of a retired Senior Chief who roams this board that I bet would agree with me.

_____________________________

Don't worry about the mice when the elephants are stomping on your head...

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 22

- 3/13/2003 12:06:25 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

Just to add to the flames: (cause I'm just *that* kind of guy)

60 Minutes ran a piece tonight on the (in)famed Patriot anti-missile system tonight pointing out that the 100% kill rates that were claimed against SCUD missiles in the Gulf was actually a 0% kill rate.

They also had people point out that the tests of the new improved Patriot III system that has been deployed has failed completely in 7 tests to stop an inbound under test (certainly not war) conditions. The expected kill rate in reality is 20% under wartime conditions as best. Lets hope they are not needed.

I think we have a tendancy to overrate our toys at times simply because they are *our* toys. Seems to be a lot of that in UV with people having a tough time dealing with US aircraft being slaughtered wholesale until the second generation planes like the F6F & F1U show up.

On the other hand, the SPY-1D system has the power output to make sure your kids and your kids kids have 6 arms and 2 heads. They don't have to shoot you down, they just aim and fry you with the effective power output of sitting inside your microwave oven for 30 minutes on high! :D

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 23

- 3/13/2003 1:21:28 PM

Mike_B20

Posts: 389
Joined: 2/13/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

Just as an aside, color, that link you provided for the hit on Essex
has some interesting reading on Torpedo Squadron 4.

I have been reading about the training that these guys went through and found this quote quite funny :

"Then is when the fun begins. The leader sights a farm house and peals off into a dive. Each of the other planes peal off in order behind the leader. We dive about 4000 ft. and zoom the farms all over this country. Sure fun to watch chickens and dogs and cows scatter. I don't imagine the farmers like being dived on very much but they always wave at us as we zoom by. The other day all 18 planes dove on a car running along the highway. The driver run into the ditch, got out and ran across the pasture. He figured the Japs had attacked for sure."

_____________________________

Never give up, never surrender

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 24

- 3/13/2003 5:41:07 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

Hi Mr Frag
Seems to be a lot of that in UV with people having a tough time dealing with US aircraft being slaughtered wholesale until the second generation planes like the F6F & F1U show up.

well to bring up the old posts again, show the numbers where the WildCat was Slaughtered by Zeros, then I won't feel so bad

by the by, I uninstalled and reinstalled the game to see if I had a screwed up patch, parts of what I was seeing before now seem to be gone

about the patroit missing so much, I remember right after that action, they were starting to say that, also, the Big Brass was saying we didn't knock out all them tanks either, that the guys out in the field, must of been dropping bombs on dead tanks over and over again, and mistakening them for new tanks

the Big Brass was so wrong about the outcome of the battle, they had to downplay how good it was ??????

HARD_Sarge

sorry back to ECM

_____________________________

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 25

Patriot - 3/13/2003 6:31:58 PM

SWODOG

Posts: 37
Joined: 5/9/2002
From: Atlanta, Georgia
Status: offline

Just for the record the Patriot deployed to the Gulf was not designed to shoot down an incoming ballistic missile. It was such an excellent AAW sysem that it was sent there because trying was better than no defense at all. I have no experience to speak to the PAC3 generation Patriot that is now in the Gulf other than what the media reports. The tests you are talking about sound more like THAAD than PAC3 Patriot but you are probably right.

_____________________________

Don't worry about the mice when the elephants are stomping on your head...

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 26

- 3/14/2003 12:02:48 AM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

One of my Uncles was a gunner on the bow 40mm mount of LST-66 throughout World War II. He was present at the invasion of the Philippines in 1944. For some reason, he was reassigned to the stern mount. Five minutes later a Kamikaze landed on the bow mount. According to his description, the front half of the ship was basically incinerated, everyone and everything. In addition, it blew a hole down to the bottom of the boat. LST-66 survived, barely. I don't know what type of plane hit her.

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 27

perhaps the captain didn't know - 3/14/2003 3:24:14 PM

elcid

Posts: 226
Joined: 11/20/2002
From: Lakewood Washington
Status: offline

Stark's captian blaimed her loss on the fact search radar cannot see a cruise missile, which in fact it cannot. Our successful development of anti-missile tactics did NOT depend on search radar detection, but on ECM detection. Stark's captain didn't know that, and clearly never was trained to monitor the threat bands. So perhaps he also didn't know what he was talking about when he reported that all three of his AA weapons could not bear on the threat axis. Certainly he violated standing orders when he ran a full power engineering test not permitted except in transit far at sea, not near any threats (using up his ability to maneuver quickly). And, with the single exception of a single missile downed by USS Sterett, in four years of ASCM attacks EVERY missile was defeated by "old" ECM. There were two different kinds of systems used, and both were available to Stark, but I refuse to name them in this medium. Nether was used because the ECM station was not manned. And the Stark was not engaged by a "friendly" aircraft. A US manned Saudi AWACS detected the hostile (Iraqi) plane, and was unable to warn Stark because (then) the USN and USAF didn't have a common communications standard (this changed in 1991).

I note that you ignored the possibility an airliner might NOT be hijacked, even though I pointed it out. And if it is NOT hijacked, there is no reason it might not have the kinds of radar, or better ECM, gear used when such planes are used for maritime surveilance, which gear is now unclassified and sold openly. Further, there is no reason the aircraft might not be on a properly filed flight plan, and I find it patently unlikely that the USN is able to know the flight plan of every scheduled airliner and every charter on the planet, real time. If they shoot at every plane they don't have data on, there are going to be casualties! I also note you ignore the possibility that a kamakaze might use a warplane, purpose built as such, even though I also pointed that out. They don't have to be on airliner routes, and you can't be shooting them down just because they are flying around, even if you don't like their flight path. And if that was USN policy, there also would be casualties. As to TACAN, I hope you are right about it not being on - maybe we learned something - but you are wrong that it is never used by non-military aircraft. It has been sold commercially for decades.

Please do not accuse me of being cynical. I am a professional and a combat veteran. I have never lost my temper and I never will, so I do not 'flame.' The EW rating was first defined in 1968, not the 1980s, and before that there were "technician operators" in the form of ETs who went to what were then RD (today's OS) schools. According to the CNO (Adm. Thomas Moorer) "It normally takes 10-15 years to develop new equipment and tactics, from conception to operational deployment. We must do that in only five months because North Viet Nam will deploy the SSN-2 by August." It was conventional wisdom missile attacks "could not be defeated" - but we (uncynical) types did just that. Israel, which lost Elat to the same weapon in 1967, adopted our concepts, and defeated 54 of 54 attacks in 1973. We stopped every attack from 1968-1972, including the first missile to missile kill in history, made by Sterett, along with 2 MiGs, in 1972 (disclosed in Conways All the World's Fighting Ships). The peacetime Navy has a tradition of not doing its homework: until Elat went down no one would listen to the idea the cruise missile was a problem we were not prepared to handle. The AAW mission is hard because you must make decisions in a very short time with sometimes inadequate information. Watch officers tend to err on the side of not killing civilians, when in doubt, and properly so, for moral and political reasons. It is hardly wrong to point out that air threats are potentially dangerous ones. The more unexpected they are, the less likely they would be understood as such and engaged. It is not wrong to point this out. And if you cannot hit a ship with a 737, I invite you to come up to Seattle and use some of the flight simulators at Boeing. I bet it takes you less than a day to score 9 times out of 10.

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 28

Re: Slightly OT: kamikazes - 3/15/2003 2:23:24 AM

panda124c

Posts: 1692
Joined: 5/23/2000
From: Houston, TX, USA
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Grotius
[B]I'm doing some research on kamikaze pilots, and I'm wondering if anyone can direct me to the most authoritative sources on them.

Also: are they modeled in WITP? [/B][/QUOTE]

This is a view from the other side, there is a book on the USS Arron Ward, (I don't remember the name) the last one (there were 3 during WWII) was reclassified as a Destroyer Minelayer (DM 34) and was on picket duty in the Philliphines, when hit by, IIRC, four Kamikaze's and survived. But the book talks about the recieving end of the Japanese Kamikaze attacks.

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 29