So how effective were kamikaze attacks?
Would the Japanese have been better off not using that tactic?
So how effective were kamikaze attacks?
Caleb Morales
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
Lincoln Gomez
>that kill death ratio
It was their most successful tactic
>Approximately 2,800 Kamikaze attackers sank 34 Navy ships, damaged 368 others, killed 4,900 sailors, and wounded over 4,800.
Other sources put the number of ships sunk as high as 57.
Adrian Sanders
A very efficient way to make use of not very experienced pilots (read cheap) and very cheap planes. Had these planes been outfitted with machineguns or something they would have been close to absolutely useless.
Leo Young
they mostly only sunk small, undefended vessels like troop ships or escort destroyers
so their high kill ratio is offset by the fact that they rarely attacked hard targets
the main limit to kamikaze attacks was the lack of machines to give the volunteers
even counting older planes, their stock wouldnt last very long
Alexander Cruz
>Would the Japanese have been better off not using that tactic?
Japan started it after the situation became hopeless.
Kayden Martin
>destroying undefended ships doesnt count
Baka gaijin.
Connor Reyes
I was watching a video a while ago where they talked about something that made me totally rethink kamikazes.
The Japanese lacked the ability to train their pilots to a degree that would make them effective combatants. But training them to fly their planes into ships was an option that COULD result in casualties, while being cheaper.
They were going to lose the plane either way, this way it might take a ship with it.
Jackson Sanchez
>tfw an MXY-7 Ohka over-penned the bow of the destroyer USS Stanly punching a hole clean through before detonating underwater resulting in little damage done to the Stanly.
Jonathan Baker
it does count, but then you would have to compare its effectiveness against planes that attacked primarily soft targets rather than a mix of soft and hard targets
as any plane, not just kamikazes, would have a very good kill ratio if most of its targets are solely small craft
Matthew Kelly
How many ships did we lose to non-Kamikaze aerial attacks?
Carter Sanders
>When Japan had actually trained aircrew.
Quite a few.
>By the time Japan started Kamikaze attacks
Fuck all.
The Philippine Sea was not called the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot for nothing.
Elijah James
The whole point of kamikazes is that they are supposed to take out ships that they would have no hope of successfully attacking in a conventional strike. If you're using them to take out sitting ducks, then you just wasted your kamikaze.
For merchant ships in particular, you don't even need to hit them with bombs or torpedos. The americans used to strafe them with fighters and that would usually be enough to either knock out their wheel house at minimum. Even their trash tier pilots they were using for kamikaze missions could have done that.
Matthew Ramirez
it sucked ass and they would've fought better if they didn't waste resources and time on suicide attacks
Cooper Diaz
At that point they really couldn't do any substantial damage to the fleets regardless so it was that or nothing.
youtube.com
Ian Cruz
dude, this is the kind of shit you use google for. i googled it, because I couldn't remember if they largest ship they sunk was a destroyer or an escort carrier. first page, 14% hit rate. 3000 pilots sacrificed to destroy less than 47 ships.google this shit, no need to make a thread.
Aaron Gray
William Powell
>literally over 9000 casualties from kamikaze attacks alone
Holy shit
James Morgan
>Would the Japanese have been better off not using that tactic?
The kamikaze attacks started because US air defences had gotten so good that any attack was as good as a suicide attack. The kamikaze tactics simply increased the odds that the pilot would do some damage before he was killed, by a lot.
Asher Turner
A very pragmatic choice only hampered by morality.
Grayson Stewart
Holy kek
Hunter Thomas
>Sacrifice your life in a suicide attack
>actually hit your target
>do absolutely diddly-squat in damage
Is there a fate more humiliating then this?
Ryder Morales
Abu Hajar put up a good second place
Grayson Bell
Probably yours.
He's remembered, you'll just be forgotten with two years.
Benjamin Bailey
Caleb King
>He's remembered
Do you even know his name?
Lincoln Ross
Bentley King
Will anybody outside of your immediate family know yours after your death?
Jace King
>Avoiding the question
Michael Howard
Japs know there fucked trying to win knew that Kamikaze were good use of untrained pilots to wreck American ships and draw war out
Nolan Garcia
Robert Paulson
Noah Moore
Thought so.
Your life and your accomplishments will be forgotten soon after your death and his will be immortalized in history.
Zachary White
They probably could have held out longer if they had more planes & pilots towards the end of the war. It's a stupid tactic unless you're already going down.
Jayden Edwards
brits and their armor
Aaron Sanders
Some say he is still out there, rolling through the desert.
Benjamin Adams
HAJAR! WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?!