RE: Why no Pourpos Built Kamakise Types? and Units? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

tsimmonds -> RE: Why no Pourpos Built Kamakise Types? and Units? (3/30/2004 4:23:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

I beleave that 576 mph is like Mach .7(aprox.) So fast that I doubt that they would be able to track it and compenstae enough to be able to hit it in time before it hit the target...They are extreamly small targets to boot. This is why they were so feared, nothing could realy efectively stop them.

I don't believe that tracking would actually be an issue for AAA vs an Ohka attack. The reason for this is that, while the Ohka is indeed moving at high speed, there is little motion relative to its intended target and nearby screening vessels. As the Ohka is moving towards its target, the range to it is changing rapidly, but the angle of its approach does not. Even for screening vessels (not targets themselves), relative motion would be quite small until the Ohka begins to near its target. Certainly for a considerable distance beginning at the outer edges of 5" range there would be very little relative motion for most of the screening vessels that would likely be engaging it.

It is in fact a more difficult target for other reasons though. It is smaller, and its higher speed means that since it is within range of the AAA for less time, it would also receive less fire in total than an ordinary kamikaze.



tsimmonds -> RE: Why no Pourpos Built Kamakise Types? and Units? (3/30/2004 4:39:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jnier

The early models were ineffecitve because of their range (23 miles) - as a previous poster mentioned, the mother Betty was usually shot down before they could launch the Okha. I have no idea how many Okha's were shot down after launch - I would guess not that many.

As has been pointed out, the later model greatly increased their range (173 miles), so if a Japanese player could produce the later model in greater numbers (for example - if the game goes longer than August '45), then perhaps they could have done more damage.

The Ohka certainly wasn't a war winning weapon, but the later versions may have been more effective.

I don't think that longer range by itself would necessarily make them more effective. True, they would be more likely to be launched before their carrier could be engaged, but other problems remain.

The main problem I see with any over the horizon launch is that of finding a target. I can imagine navigating from the cockpit of an Ohka would be problematic. I can imagine that just flying the damn thing would require both hands and at least 90% of the pilot's attention. I could be wrong.... The thing is that we are still talking about dead-reckoning. Finding the target TF, then finding a suitable target within the TF would certainly not be easy in any case. Launching from far OTH would make it more difficult by an order of magnitude.

These problems can be compensated for by launching closer to the target. But the closer you launch, the less you make use of the theoretical advantage of the longer range....again, the fallacy of confusing a weapon's impressive characteristics with the likelihood that they will significantly improve its effectiveness....



Mr.Frag -> RE: Why no Pourpos Built Kamakise Types? and Units? (3/30/2004 4:49:51 PM)

They were ineffective because they were very difficult to stear, not because they were shot down. Mind you that might actually contribute to why they were tough to shoot down too [;)]



Brady -> RE: Why no Pourpos Built Kamakise Types? and Units? (3/30/2004 7:39:47 PM)

p.94

"On 21st March K711 suxcedded in launching 18 aircraft on the first Jinrai sortie, with 15 of the rikko carrying Ohka to give the weapon it's combat debut"

The were all shot down before reaching the launch point. K711 had been atack at ait's base by Carrier launched planes before this sorti and had taken considerable losses in Rikko before this soritie occured as a result of both these actions this unit was disbanded. Their was howeaver another unit that had been trained and equiped to use the Ohka at this time ready to go...

"Leaving K708 to take over as the operational hikotai. The later unit would subsequently undertake a number of small scale sorties, primarly at night, priour to the wars end."

Suporting these Night operations were:

"Also Flying from Kyusho was K704, which was controled by 706 Ku, while 801 Kokutai operated reconnaissance Hikotai 703. Formerly K703, the later unit had been redesignated on 15th March 1945. T707 and 709 were also assigned to 801 Ku, and they preformed mainly night patroles and mine laying operations. From Taiwan, K702 under 765 Ku control, flew small number of mishions, as did a provishional unit Know as Atack (special) Hikotai 701. Again part of 765 Ku, 701 was equiped with Type 1 aircraft..."

"K708 flew it's next Jinrai sorti on the afternoon of 12 Aprial with 8 rikko, which suxcedded in launching six Ohka. One of them sank the destroyer USS Mannert L Abele in the only confirmed Ohka sinking of the war...."

After this sortie two more were made in daylight both were intercepted two early to launch, after this the unit switched back to Night atacks , Ocashionaly some daylight sorties were undertaken, but right up to the end of the war Ohka sorties were the last being flow on the 14th of Augast 1945.

Several ships were damaged By Ohkas including the BB West Virginia.

Given that these did manage to hit their targets, both in daylight and at night, and considering the small number actualy launched, and that nowhear have i sean a referance for one shot down..after Launch, I should think they worked well enough, the main problem being the deleavery means... this would of been rectified to a degree in later models, which were to be carried by P1Y's with about double the range, and even greater as evidanced by the list of model types above, their was even to be a shore launched vershion and a sub launced vershion.


Sources: Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific war by Francillon, and Mitsubishi Type 1 Rikko "Betty" units of WW2 by Osamu Tagaya.



pertsajakilu -> RE: Why no Pourpos Built Kamakise Types? and Units? (3/31/2004 5:44:50 PM)

What we are missing here is Japanese Anti-Panzer Boot ( APB ) which was common boot used by soldiers, but it's head was replaced with at-gun grenade. How it works is simple. A grunt simply kicks unware tank with his APB and voila. No more effective tank. Is this APB included in WITP?[:'(]

Pertsajakilu



mogami -> RE: Why no Pourpos Built Kamakise Types? and Units? (3/31/2004 6:50:33 PM)

Hi Brady do you want the desease infected rice and fleas that were air dropped over China as well?



Damien Thorn -> RE: Why no Pourpos Built Kamakise Types? and Units? (3/31/2004 7:09:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi Brady do you want the desease infected rice and fleas that were air dropped over China as well?


Biological weapons might be nice since they are including nukes. The plan was, after testing in China, to release the weapon over the USA from high-altitude balloons. I'm not sure what sort of game impact it would have. Maybe points for civilian casualties (as discusting as that thought is in real-life).



mdiehl -> RE: Why no Pourpos Built Kamakise Types? and Units? (3/31/2004 7:20:13 PM)

quote:

The Okaha should be all but imune from interception, and almost imune to ack as well, though their is the off chance that it could be hit by Flack, High spead and very slow spead made ACK have a dificult time tracking a target, also the Ohaka is extreamly small, though to track and hit.


LOL! I agree, without Brady this place might become dull.

The Ohka should also be all but immune to the prospect of striking a target, since it was virtually uncontrollable and could not be counted on to hit an entire harbor, much less a ship anchored IN a harbor.

quote:

Biological weapons might be nice since they are including nukes.


That'd sure make the end-game interesting.

Computer: "Japan offers to surrender, you may: 1. Continue the bombing. 2. Continue the bombing adding nukes as they become available. 3. Continue the bombing adding nerve gas and nukes as they become available."

[Player clicks on 3.]

Computer: "Excellent choice. Japan should be ready for rehabitation in about 200 years. Would you prefer to: 1. Colonize? 2. Establish a large game preserve?"

[Player clicks on 2.]

Computer: "Excellent choice. To continue this game, install the accompanying "Dangerous Game Animals" program and select from the following weapons manufacturers. 1. Weatherby. 2. Remington. 3. Savage Arms. 4. Sturm-Ruger. 5. Browning. 6. Winchester. 7. Mannlicher-Schoenauer. 8...."

etc.



mogami -> RE: Why no Pourpos Built Kamakise Types? and Units? (3/31/2004 7:25:40 PM)

Hi, All he sees is that they sank a DD and damaged the West Virginia.
Poor Japan. He would build 20,000 of these things and be happy to hit a troop ship. Weapons of desperation only point the need for an auto victory to end the game when it becomes pointless.



Mr.Frag -> RE: Why no Pourpos Built Kamakise Types? and Units? (3/31/2004 7:29:07 PM)

quote:

Hi, All he sees is that they sank a DD and damaged the West Virginia.
Poor Japan. He would build 20,000 of these things and be happy to hit a troop ship. Weapons of desperation only point the need for an auto victory to end the game when it becomes pointless.


Agreed, but it seems we are in the minority here, everyone else seems to want to play "Terminator IV: WitP"

I guess once they play the Mariana's scenerio once as Japan, they will learn from their mistakes and adjust their ways.



mogami -> RE: Why no Pourpos Built Kamakise Types? and Units? (3/31/2004 7:39:57 PM)

Hi, I plan on playing Japan to the bitter end. My bitter end does not include the kamikaze as a wonder weapon. Kamikaze missions are required because at some point they achive better results compared to normal bombing missions but I intend them only to reopen the door for my normal bombers. If nothing else I will trade a large number of Japanese pilots to defeat 1 late war landing. I won't use them in dribbles. I won't use them alone. When Japan is losing 300 conventional bombers a day sending 100-200 Kamikaze instead is actually saving material and men. If I am faced with an invasion of the Home Islands I will depend on the Army. I don't think the Allied player can transport enough troops to Japan. He can land on some empty rocky beach I don't care.
If Japan is not in a solid position before Kamikaze strikes become an option they will not save them. If Japan is doing well (game wise-point wise) Then limited use of Kamikaze strikes might be worth using.



Subchaser -> RE: Why no Pourpos Built Kamakise Types? and Units? (3/31/2004 9:27:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific war by Francillon, and Mitsubishi Type 1 Rikko "Betty" units of WW2 by Osamu Tagaya.


"Rikko units of ww2" by Osamu Tagaya is not the first book you should read on this subject, Tagaya did an outstanding job on covering early war period, but later war was just briefly described. For more detailed stuff look into “The Hagoromo Society of Kamikaze Divine Thunderbolt Corps Survivors: The Cherry blossom Squadrons” by Andrew Adams. Ohara publications 1975. on ohka combat effectiveness - pp 48-79.

Characteristics on paper and in reality proved to be quite different, it was figured out that Okha effective range was exactly 10 times more than altitude of a drop, Maru dai (Rikko + Okha complex) maximum ceiling was 6km, thus Okha effective range was just 60 km. Operational range of G4M2e with attached Okha was 65% of Rikko’s normal (with usual loadout), so the main problem was not how to avoid US fighters during Okha's actual attack, but how to protect Rikkos that close to US fleet. However there were successes, on 12th april 45 Dohi Saburo from Kaigun Jinrai Butai, the first successful Ohka driver, hit DD-733 Mannert L. Abele (ship disintegrated) near Okinawa, out of 10 launched 3 more Jinrai pilots managed to commit 'surimisho' that day, one hit water in just 50 meters away from DMS-27 Jeffers, explosion seriously damaged the ship, 2 others attacked DD-478 Stanly, one was destroyed by flak but another one reached its target, warhead did not exploded immediately, Ohka simply went thru the ship too fast, Kamikaze left huge hole and exploded only when Okha was already deep in water. (sailors from Stanly later told that they did not see that last Okha and thought that it was torpedo launched by Japanese submarine)

Later there were some more victories, but incomparably less Japanese hoped for. The main problem was not in Okha itself but in adequate escorts for Rikkos, % of hits for those Ohkas who had reached the target area was pretty high in comparison with regular kamikaze.

I scanned this scheme for you, gives overall picture of Okha attack

[image]local://upfiles/7985/Xv635903913.gif[/image]



Mr.Frag -> RE: Why no Pourpos Built Kamakise Types? and Units? (3/31/2004 9:47:29 PM)

Realistically, Japan needed these early in '43 to be able to offset the USA. Had they existed back then, they probably would have had some value. As they existed in history, they will amount to Japan getting potentially some extra VP near the end of the game should they luck out.



Damien Thorn -> RE: Why no Pourpos Built Kamakise Types? and Units? (3/31/2004 11:12:35 PM)

Why would they come in low on the final approach like a torpedo bomber? It seems to me it would be better if they dropped straight down like a dive bomber. Nice diagrams.



mdiehl -> RE: Why no Pourpos Built Kamakise Types? and Units? (3/31/2004 11:21:15 PM)

Easier to correct your approach in level flight because it takes longer to hit the target and you probably have a bigger profile. Consider a vertical dive. Great speed .. 800 k/h ... but no time to correct your targeting.

And these guys are going to be the dregs of the pilot pool. So you want their job to be as simple as you can make it.



Rendova -> RE: Why no Pourpos Built Kamakise Types? and Units? (3/31/2004 11:59:37 PM)

And I think that that final dive to level off for the run in would have been a wild ride... most likely it would end up with your ride to glory ending in a big splash and a [sm=00000959.gif]



Mark VII -> BradySpeak (4/1/2004 12:56:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

p.94

"On 21st March K711 suxcedded in launching 18 aircraft on the first Jinrai sortie, with 15 of the rikko carrying Ohka to give the weapon it's combat debut"

The were all shot down before reaching the launch point. K711 had been atack at ait's base by Carrier launched planes before this sorti and had taken considerable losses in Rikko before this soritie occured as a result of both these actions this unit was disbanded. Their was howeaver another unit that had been trained and equiped to use the Ohka at this time ready to go...

"Leaving K708 to take over as the operational hikotai. The later unit would subsequently undertake a number of small scale sorties, primarly at night, priour to the wars end."

Suporting these Night operations were:

"Also Flying from Kyusho was K704, which was controled by 706 Ku, while 801 Kokutai operated reconnaissance Hikotai 703. Formerly K703, the later unit had been redesignated on 15th March 1945. T707 and 709 were also assigned to 801 Ku, and they preformed mainly night patroles and mine laying operations. From Taiwan, K702 under 765 Ku control, flew small number of mishions, as did a provishional unit Know as Atack (special) Hikotai 701. Again part of 765 Ku, 701 was equiped with Type 1 aircraft..."

"K708 flew it's next Jinrai sorti on the afternoon of 12 Aprial with 8 rikko, which suxcedded in launching six Ohka. One of them sank the destroyer USS Mannert L Abele in the only confirmed Ohka sinking of the war...."

After this sortie two more were made in daylight both were intercepted two early to launch, after this the unit switched back to Night atacks , Ocashionaly some daylight sorties were undertaken, but right up to the end of the war Ohka sorties were the last being flow on the 14th of Augast 1945.

Several ships were damaged By Ohkas including the BB West Virginia.

Given that these did manage to hit their targets, both in daylight and at night, and considering the small number actualy launched, and that nowhear have i sean a referance for one shot down..after Launch, I should think they worked well enough, the main problem being the deleavery means... this would of been rectified to a degree in later models, which were to be carried by P1Y's with about double the range, and even greater as evidanced by the list of model types above, their was even to be a shore launched vershion and a sub launced vershion.


Sources: Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific war by Francillon, and Mitsubishi Type 1 Rikko "Betty" units of WW2 by Osamu Tagaya.


Brady: you have great facts and resources to back those facts up with. You can even write an OK sentence, but why can't you spell? The above message is not that bad but I have seen worse. Your stuff is difficult to read, sometimes to the point of not getting the point of your message. There are days that if you are having a bad "spelling" day, I stop reading your posts after the first sentence since its like trying to read Klingon. Maybe someone has a Star Trek like "universal translator" that can be tuned to BradySpeak! Please use a spell checker or something![:)]

I am only kidding here,[:'(] but did some grizzly bears raise you in the mountains of Oregon?



pasternakski -> RE: BradySpeak (4/1/2004 1:58:54 AM)

You know, this thread may have evolved into one of the "Top Ten Absurdities" ever to emerge in these forums. What a load of toasted bull chips. The Japanese suicide weapons were nothing more than sad, weak attempts by a crazed national control system to lash out at those who would, sooner or later, break their power and re-establish a measure of sanity.

If you want to see suicidal terror at its best, move forward a few decades to the current day. The Japanese were rank amateurs, their equipment was jury-rigged garbage, and their fate carved in stone at places like Coral Sea, Midway, and Guadalcanal long before the kamikaze, okha, and other weapons of desperation were used.



Brady -> RE: BradySpeak (4/1/2004 7:04:43 AM)

Mogami, I had a bunch of stuff scaned and I had inteneded to do a thred on Vector Bombs, but I figured after all the ruffled feathers over the topic I started on the Burma railraod that it was considered OK for us to Nuke the Japanese but not for the Japanese to use such things as Cehmical/Biological weapons in China or else whear....They were droped on if I remember several Chiniese towns to test their efectivenss but not realy deployed in a truly operational since. Personaly I am a bit repulsed by such things on many levals, this extends to all NBC weapons. Though I agree that the use of the Bomb(s) were definatly the corect thing to do and that Thousands of lives were saved on both sides as a result of their use. Personaly in the Game I dont have a problem with using either, though I could see it being a subject of much controversy and I doubt that it would ever be considerd seriously by the designers for numiours reasions.

Subchaser, TY for posting that picture, it puts things in a bit better perspective, I had read how they were intended to be used but nothing is better than a picture to paint things clearly. I will check out that refrence you mention as well thanks.

Mark VII, I dont spell well becuase when I was in school I made a conshions choice to not Learn How to well, also I decided Gramer was unworthy of my time, I got through English in school by Aceing all the reading and comperhenshion and volcalubery parts and geting F's on all the spelling and gramer, generaly worked out to a C in English for me and drove all my teachers crazy, Note my effect on pasternakski :), Collage was abit harder I actualy had to pay more atention to spelling and proof read all my papers, took a long time. Not in hind sight one of better choices. Actualy this is the first forum whear I have posted on regulary that it is such a big deal.



CMDRMCTOAST -> RE: BradySpeak (4/1/2004 7:22:37 AM)

English su@#ed I skipped all the classes except for the tests which I passed
you don't have to spell good to luv the history of warfare and you write what
you want to share and learn about, we all do so keep up the good work and
keep posting.[:)]



Brady -> RE: BradySpeak (4/1/2004 7:25:53 AM)

TY:)



bradfordkay -> RE: BradySpeak (4/1/2004 7:50:32 AM)

quote:

Actualy this is the first forum whear I have posted on regulary that it is such a big deal.


That just shows that this forum attracts a better educated bunch.

There are times that your writing tries my soul, Brady, but I realized a while ago that some of us were making too much of it. I want to apologise if I have offended you in the past with some of my quips, and apologise beforehand because I know that my twisted sense of humour is probably going to find another of your gems to play with someday. Please undestand that it isn't done in a mean-spirited way, it's only that some mistakes are just begging to be turned into a joke!



Brady -> RE: BradySpeak (4/1/2004 8:45:34 AM)

"That just shows that this forum attracts a better educated bunch"

Well I wouldent nescessarly say that, more anal migh be more approparate:)

But I understand that my spelling is very trying for many and I do appoligse for it, and understand that whaterver flack I get is nothing compared to some the pain inflected on the mases who try and sift throught my post to get to the meat of the matter. I appricate them taking the time to do so.



Drongo -> RE: BradySpeak (4/1/2004 10:07:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady
But I understand that my spelling is very trying for many and I do appoligse for it, and understand that whaterver flack I get is nothing compared to some the pain inflected on the mases who try and sift throught my post to get to the meat of the matter. I appricate them taking the time to do so.


You probably don't twist your spelling any more than the rest of us can twist logic.

One thing I'm curious about is when you transcribe text from a written source into a post, how the **** do you manage to mis-spell the words that should be right in front of you?



Speedysteve -> RE: BradySpeak (4/1/2004 1:11:11 PM)

Just a quick question.

I know a little about the Okhas but how did they function exactly? Were they piloted? Remote controlled?

Are the other suicide weapons included like Midget subs, torpedoes etc?

Regards,

Steven



Damien Thorn -> RE: BradySpeak (4/1/2004 6:21:18 PM)

Spelling will be a lost art in a decade anyway (if it isn't already) with automated spell-checkers like Microsoft Word. If you don't want to proof-read your posts, you can always type in Word first adn then cut and paste into the forum. I don't think it's necessary though; I can read the posts here just fine.

I have a much bigger problem with the people who don't know the difference between "their, they're, and there" and "to, too, and two".



Rendova -> RE: BradySpeak (4/1/2004 6:29:07 PM)

lets not forget effect vs Affect and NAVAL vs NAVEL..... don't worry about the Speling er.... spelling I can't eythur [:D]



mdiehl -> RE: BradySpeak (4/1/2004 7:49:09 PM)

quote:

I know a little about the Okhas but how did they function exactly? Were they piloted? Remote controlled?


"Piloted" by guys who couldn't otherwise get an a/c off the ground. Imagine a V1 with a really talentless pilot school wash-out in the driver's seat.



Damien Thorn -> RE: BradySpeak (4/1/2004 7:53:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
"Piloted" by guys who couldn't otherwise get an a/c off the ground. Imagine a V1 with a really talentless pilot school wash-out in the driver's seat.


They were not pilot school "wash-outs" as you say. The people who wahsed out from the Japanese Naval piloting program (the toughest in the world at the start of the war) becamse ground crew. The kamikaze were pilots who had completed a very brief piloting program. They didn't have much skill but they didn't NEED much skill. That was the whole point. I'm pretty sure most of the people on this forum could pilot an ohka without ANY piloting experience.



mdiehl -> RE: BradySpeak (4/1/2004 7:59:55 PM)

Pilot school wash out was simply a description to give one a metaphor for describing their piloting abilities. If it's inappropriate it may be because most wash outs actually progressed farther in their training than these guys. As for their ability to control them. I laugh. Imagine a Bell X-1 piloted by Zippy the Clown.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.468994