Kamikaze Tactics - Insane or Rational?

[@zealot360]

Kamikaze training: Everybody pay attention, I'm only gonna show you this once

[@aslamnurfikri7640]

Trainee: "So how do we do the landing?" Instructor: "What landing?"

[@oyuk4618]

Hahhahahah

[@mirzahamzabaig5667]

@@aslamnurfikri7640 Instructor: Oh landing? Just land head first into enemy warships.

[@mannamedisaak3316]

Canadian Tuxedo TENNO KEKI BANZI

[@conesinker_4209]

Stolen

[@markasimmons]

Good God, I got an advert for Japan Airlines (JAL) before your upload.

[@0utc4st1985]

As I recall there was a JAL flight that committed a kamikaze attack in a Tom Clancy novel.

[@kharnthebetrayero9036]

Book the flight listen to the pilots beware of hearing nippon banzai

[@erikawhelan4673]

0utc4st1985 Debt of Honor

[@korstmahler]

You know what? That's actually really good of JAL to allow the advert in today's ad climate. Knowing or not, they're standing up for traditionally low ad rate content.

[@b1laxson]

Was the ad to be a passenger or a pilot?

[@DirtyHairy1]

This makes me remember reading of a non-gamer journalist trying out a FPS game in multiplayer. After some frustrating rounds he/she wrote that switching to a suicide tactic (pulling the pin on a grenade and running towards an enemy) provided a way better death/kill ratio. So I think this all supports the theory of asymmetric warfare, and basically, game theory. Nice history example!

[@thelvadam2884]

DirtyHairy1 🤔

[@LawL_LawL]

Very true, not just from game theory applied to FPS and Imperial Japanese methodology with aircraft attacks, look at the art form of martial arts and you can find analogues. An untrained attacker fighting with the same degree of self preservation and natural instinct is going to flat out lose against someone more skilled. If they discard those sensibilities and are only fighting to inflict loss, even if they lose the initial exchange they can put themselves in a good position to land a potentially fatal afterblow. Even better if their suicidal tendencies are not well responded to by trained martial artists and they can land a fatal strike first, regardless of the potential afterblow from their more experienced and capable opponent as the hit was all they were aiming to achieve. Symmetrical warfare on the micro scale is what people are used to dealing with, and when the mentality and methodology becomes asymmetrical, it is as jarring to the individual as large scale asymmetrical warfare like guerrilla warfare is to nation states and their armed forces.

[@nottoday3817]

I've actually done that and can confirm

[@thedude3802]

LawL That's not how combat works. An unarmed maniac is not landing any "fatal blows" on a trained fighter.

[@neues3691]

The Dude Unarmed maniacs are beating people to death all the time. Don't kid yourself. Fists can and will kill

[@mikesanders6881]

I used to take my dad to his WW2 reunion every year. He was on the DD592 USS Howorth. They were dove on several times by kamikaze planes, with one major hit on the main battery director, killing everyone inside and some people on the bridge. The Chief Boatswain mate told me that it wasn't good enough to just shoot the plane and kill the pilot, he said you had to keep shooting until you broke the plane up into peices. The plane would keep coming if you didn't break it up. My dad was on the 20 mm machine gun. He said that it didn't seem to matter where you were on the Destroyer, it always seem like the plane was coming straight for you. Also there was almost no armor on a Destroyer, a lot of times the bomb would pass through the hull of the ship and explode on the back side of the ship but the engine and gasoline would a lot of the time do more damage than the bomb.

[@carbon1255]

It is the most terrifying strategy, because you can't win. You lose more people than they do no matter how good you are at shooting them. One little boy hits and tens of people die at least. At least they didn't really know the boys were only 13 or so at the time.

[@simonyip5978]

Mike Sanders a very interesting story, thanks for sharing it with us.

[@dankuchar6821]

We all owe men like your father a huge debt! I wish I could thank him in person.

[@anti-defecationleague5180]

"Dove on" I can imagine a kamikaze pilot lining up his trajectory and screaming "This roundeye finna bouta get dove on"

[@ToreDL87]

@@Oldsmobile69 It truly was, any way they could cause harm = they did it. Today just doesnt compare.

[@HistoryMarche]

Truly one of your best videos. Marvelous work!

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

nice channel!

[@HistoryMarche]

Thank you kindly!! I'm still just starting out. Among others, your channel has in fact been an inspiration.

[@benjaminguilatcoiv]

Re. the title of this vid, yes for a fanatical navy and its air arm command that is losing.. from a "certain point of view*" it can look rational. However for the individual pilot it is not sane. They are compelled by the indoctrination they've grown up in, by societal pressure and by the military's inexorable command. But that "certain point of view*" which can look at Kamikaze attacks as rational is still insane. When the only way for a military command seems to be suicidal attacks or suicidal defense with no realistic hope of eventually gaining the upper hand against a determined enemy, then this really means that they are going to be defeated and it's time to sue for peace. But you see from that "certain point of view*" they cannot see the rationality of coming to terms in the face of pointless death and suffering. And that is why they are indeed possessed by a point of view that is insane.@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized

[@janiser4711]

I think that you could have taken into consideration the fact that most bombers were not single-seat planes, so a loss of one plane meant not only a loss of the pilot, but also the radio operator/gunner etc. That makes "kamikazes" even more effective.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

+Jan Iser read reports of planes with no tail gunners. Which makes sense

[@program4215]

Japan: We should show them invading would be too costly. USA: Start making those purple hearts! We'll need around a million!

[@HeIsAnAli]

Cobi Lancaster Operation Downfall?

[@tonyennis3008]

I think they're still awarding those Purple Hearts, too.

[@carbon1255]

1,506,000. They made more than they needed.

[@rowbearly6128]

Never understood being decorated for being hurt...

[@spindash64]

Carbon 12 We didn’t run out of them until the Gulf War

[@ottlakafka3409]

*watches video about kamikaze, gets add from some japanese tourism enterprise*

[@Masterhitman935]

Ottla Kafka Visit Fukushima today! That what I got.

[@Rubashow]

"A journey of a lifetime."

[@WildBillCox13]

That's Adpocalypse, the new Supervillain. He's an involuted thinker, all right.

[@OpRaven-62]

Ottla Kafka *”tourism”?* or *”terrorism”* ok sorry, horrible little pun word combination joke, I know, I’m a disgrace to my species, I’ll show myself out now.

[@Abigail-pk2wf]

I wish I got that. I got a transphobic ad against schools referring to trans kids bt their preferred pronouns/names.

[@SpectacularSuperSoup]

This notion that kamikazes only had fuel for a one-way mission is a myth. They had enough fuel to return, and many did due to engine trouble, being unable to locate their targets, and so on. There's even a whole book composed of interviews with kamikaze "survivors", i.e. kamikazes who survived the war. See Blossoms in the Wind by M.G. Sheftall.

[@rowbearly6128]

My wifes Grandfather was a 16 year old Kamikaze. Lost tatget on first flight, was stopped on the runway on the second, to be told the war was over. Nice guy,dead now. Brave young man,to do that at 16.

[@spindash64]

Makes sense as well: having a half tank of fuel left when you make the impact means you have more stuff to have burn

[@bkjeong4302]

There's a kamikaze training manual that explicitly tells the pilot to return if conditions aren't suitable for a kamikaze attack.

[@VersusARCH]

Yup. They even carried a bit of machinegun ammo. Not the full load.

[@blackore64]

I would imagine it would be rather anti-climactic for a Kamikaze pilot to take off for his mission, only to be unable to locate his target, and being forced to crash in middle of an empty ocean due to not having enough fuel to get back.

[@Redshift2077]

Rational in an insane way.

[@ottlakafka3409]

More like in a very cold and empiric way

[@TheReaper569]

its so crazy it workss.

[@bb3xhrhj]

Only if you're a repulsive, modern, deracinated and small-souled bugman. These men were national socialists. What they did was honorable.

[@kitfisto2347]

Corneliu Codreanu no they werent

[@101jir]

National socialists is a better descriptor of the Germans. This was something more comparable to Royalism, though that still doesn't do it justice. Somewhere between Royalism, religious extremism, and a very ironic anti-imperialism. Don't get me wrong, the Germans were also quite fanatic. Just with a rather different ideology that shared just enough common ground: anti-Communism, state-above-all, and anti-democratic.

[@arsenal-slr9552]

Thanks again for all your hard work man. Just when I think you cant outdo yourself from your last videos which Ive called your best, here you go and do it again. It is a privilege to watch your videos.

[@WPSent]

Soviet Womble + "Not a serious threat" = Lol. As ever, a great video!

[@timber_wulf5775]

WPSent it’s hilariously true and sadly the only person I’ve seen acknowledging him

[@nubcake67]

I saw that too. Well played.

[@Mr._E._Shark]

Accurate, unless you're some random civilian on a walk.

[@BijiMustardGas]

more like soviet womit, that channel is an absoloute abbomination

[@edwardjj4224]

Soviets Bolsheviks doing WW Il did push it own people against machine guns and mine field's with red flags and N.K.W.D behind them drunk or sober make no difrend

[@podemosurss8316]

The name "kamikaze" seems to be a nickname alluding to a myth from medieval Japan. During the 13th century, the Mongols tried to attack Japan but most of their ships were destroyed by strong winds and storms, thus the Japanese claimed their mainland was protected by the Gods using a Heaven Wind (which is the literal meaning of Kamikaze in Japanese). The nickname would then allude both to the mythological protection of Japan and the will of those men to sacrifice for stopping such an invasion.

[@UnintentionalSubmarine]

Considering the overlap of the two words for the same character, it is not a stretch at all to imagine the pilots thinking of themselves as a third kamikaze to save Japan. Even if the name was not used as such in any official capacity. It's just what people in the armed forces do. They find connections everywhere and use them.

[@MikhaelAhava]

Kamikaze is divine wind. So yeah! Heaven gave it to them! That doesn't occur everyday and out of nowhere.

[@BackFromTheMadeUp]

That's certainly always the story I had heard. Weird MHV didn't seem to know about it.

[@equinehax]

So the Mongols came over, ready for war, and died in in a tornado. But they tried again, and had a nice time fighting with the Japanese, but then died in a tornado.

[@carbon1255]

It is a bit of a misunderstanding. The character means that, however Japanese has a few different ways to pronounce it. For example Ninja and Shinobi, one is old chinese pronunciation and one Japanese. Katana has about 4 different ways to say it. still means the same thing. mainly it is two though. HOWEVER, shimbu is totally incorrect, it does not seem to be the japanese pronunciation of the word at all, they very much called it the kamikaze squadron as far as I can tell, shimbu is the mistranslation.

[@NZsGuides]

Guided bombs before it was cool

[@andyofzz]

well the surface to air missiles are also guided today, attacking a well defended fleet with airplanes still can be suicidal .... nothing really changed

[@BESTINTHEWORLD0007]

NZsGuides That's what isis actuly do with it's attacks

[@rodigoduterte9192]

+BEST IN THE WORLD but the differences are.... Isis dont had plane and they are vulnerable to an air support... while japan at least had it

[@BESTINTHEWORLD0007]

Rodigo Duterte Yes i speak from the point that people make fun of isis for this attavks thinking isis love to sacrfice their followers but actuly they do that for they have no equipment provide them fire support

[@rodigoduterte9192]

+BEST IN THE WORLD you know... it is fun to having a ton of follower... they will to sacrifice themself to satisfy their master amuse me. they will follow their master order just like an animal circus in captivity an being fedup if they did a good job only

[@richardpcrowe]

As a U.S. Navy Cinematographer, I interviewed Vice Admiral Elliott Buckmaster who was commanding officer of USS Yorktown at the Battles of Coral Sea and Midway. I asked him about the Japanese leaving their carrier Zuikaku in Japan, instead of having her fighting in the Midway due to that carrier's air group being depleted at Coral Sea. Specifically, I asked him what he thought the results would have been if the Japanese Navy had sailed Zuikaku to Midway with a Kamikaze air group of even relatively untrained pilots. His answer was that, in his opinion, that may have changed the results of the Midway Battle from an overwhelming Japanese defeat to at least a draw, like Coral Sea. This may also have made the reconquest of the Pacific more difficult.

[@franks471]

The Japanese carriers were wrong-footed from the first moment and stood no chance. It's also likely an extra carrier being present could have meant one more carrier not prepared for an attack and a similar result.

[@arkady86]

It's also a totally fictional hypothesis, special attack units weren't even thought about in 1942 when the Japanese Combined Fleet was still a very powerful and experienced force, so there's no way the Japanese would have used one of their most advanced carriers for that sort of action at that time.

[@MrChickennugget360]

yes i wan't to agree with Arkady86 Kamakaiz's were not part of Japanese Doctrine until 1944 and it was specifically the fact that Japan was loosing so badly that made them attempt suicide planes. Kamakazi's had they been apart of Japanese Tactics from the begining would have made a Major impact had they done so in every fleet engagement.

[@thadtheman3751]

The very name kamikaze ( Wind of God ) is an illustration of how the Japanese viewed these pilots. The phrase refers to a storm that stopped an enemy battle fleet in a war they were losing. Gods Wind came and saved them from defeat. It was basically the same thing, these pilots would save them from defeat. They were not created until Japan was losing badly. Early in the war the Japanese used highly trained pilots. They did not want to lose these pilots needlessly. later when their were getting low on pilots, and were putting up anyone they could, they used kamikaze so not to spend a lot of time training the,m. Howegver at Midway, an extra empty carrier could have come in handy. There were times when Admiral Naguno wanted to do several things at once, but a Japanese carrier could only do one thing at a time. Land the returning attack on Midway. Launch fighters for defense. Launch a second strike. Launch a strike on the carriers. Moving some planes over to Zuikaku might have allowed him to execute several different maneuvers close together.

[@f430ferrari5]

xfd zfd not true about the Zuikaku. The air group could have come up with around 35 usable planes and pilots. What they would have had to done next was transfer Shokaku planes and pilots to the Zuikaku. These two carriers were the most similar amongst any of the IJN carriers. It certainly could have been done and the Zuikaku with around 60-70 planes could have went to Midway. The US made all kinds of adjustments in preparation for Midway. The IJN didn’t. Now do I think the Zuikaku would have made a difference? Not really. Perhaps a better outcome of the IJN scoring hits on the Hornet and Enterprise could have been and end result but the IJN still would have lost 3-5 carriers and too many planes and pilots. I’ll give a different strategy in a different response.

[@sevenproxies4255]

Essentially, kamikaze attacks gave the japanese something akin to self-guided cruise missiles. Something that hadn't been invented yet. So naturally that would grant them an edge.

[@Tricerius]

It wasn't self guided, nor was it a missile. It was an unpowered bomb which was aimed by means of radiowaves from the bomber that dropped them. They were guided bombs.

[@sirxavior1583]

What I'm wondering is If the Japanese received technical data on the Me-262 and the Tiger II why wouldn't they have received any data on the Fritz-X?. Even if it was only a self directed bombs knowing the Japanese they would have modified them.

[@dereenaldoambun9158]

SirXavior Fritz X is probably a secret weapon.

[@julosx]

The first army to use actual self-guided missiles was the US Navy in April 1945, sending PB-4Y Privateers, each dropping two air-to-surface missiles (SWOD-9 Bat, renamed ASM-N2 after the war) toward Japanese warships. The Japanese navy lost several of them because of this new threat. The Bats were also launched to attack ground-based targets. The F-4U Corsairs, Curtiss SB-2C Helldivers and Grumman TBF Avengers were also capable to carry this ordnance.

There were invented years ago and the V2 was used on England.

[@markrajca6783]

People dont like to think of the mind set and the dark practicalities of a war like this. I believe that people want to dismiss these tactics as crazy because they dont want to admit normal minds can come to these conclusions, that such things shouldn't work because of how horrible they sound. But its important to show that when committed to a war, nothing is off the table; things never considered start showing up. In the end, the Empire wanted to negotiate the best possible terms they could with the United states, and they would do whatever it took to accomplish them. The numbers showed this would work better than conventional attacks and they knew the psychological effect to show such an act would make an strong statement. The use of Atomic bombs is another use of math plus psychology. There is little doubt that an invasion of Japan's mainland would be an immense lose of life. At that time, it was a practical mind set to use those weapons. None of this was good, it was an logical escalation that total war brings.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

well said.

[@brianjonker510]

Those two nuclear bombs saved countless Japanese lives.

[@SuperCatacata]

Sad thing is, the people higher up who decided on these tactics probably never did it themselves. As long as it's someone else dying, the sacrifice is always worth it.

[@archiveacc3248]

@@SuperCatacata what else are you supposed to do? Stick the guy who has overall command on the front lines? He can't communicate with all his forces. He can't see the overall strategic situation. And when the enemy realizes that you were kind enough to stick your commander on the front lines, and they will realize, you'll have your best organizer dead. And a modern military without organization is useless. I've never understood this notion that generals need to fight and die with their men. It's not the Napoleonic Wars any more. Ever since then, wars have become so large scale that the highest commander cannot effectively command at the site of the battle. That's why the entire military hierarchy exists.

[@brucetucker4847]

@@SuperCatacata Combat pilot is a young man's game, especially back then. Pappy Boyington was all of 30 years old when he took over VMF-214 and they thought he was a crazy old man. Young men dying in old men's wars has been lamented since the days of Herodotus at least.

[@HarryWHill-GA]

Large laugh when you mentioned errors in pronunciation. You do far better with English than I would do with German. My wife complains that I speak Hungarian with a French accent. I had to learn it to talk to the cats. Even they have trouble with my accent. But then they are cats.

[@alephkasai9384]

Why are you talking to cats?

[@chayophan3078]

@@alephkasai9384 why aren't you?

[@alephkasai9384]

@@chayophan3078 I-

[@chayophan3078]

@@alephkasai9384 I'm still laughing over response...! Thanx!

[@onestupidboi9320]

Why do you need to use Hungarian to talk to cats

[@watdeneuk]

4:03 and in the Netherlands they say Germans don't have any humor, I love you man. Keep up the good stuff.

[@thisisjeffwong]

I think in a prior video, he revealed he was Austrian. Soooooo...

[@watdeneuk]

That does explains a lot. ;)

[@Iason29]

+Jeff W I think you can tell from the accent...they don't need to tell you

[@MajinOthinus]

He is, but Austrians are ethnic Germans (in contrast to the swiss who aren't), so he is still correct....

[@IronWarhorsesFun]

So no jokes about A-Wings, Star Wars and Kamikaze?

[@captainseyepatch3879]

The thing is, Kamikaze attacks where actually very rational from a damage done stance. They where insane from the simple perspective of, if you need to use Kamikaze, then you have already lost, unless you are fighting a weak willed enemy. The consistent failure of the Axis in the war was simply not being able to figure out when there enemy would give up. Or why.

[@carbon1255]

They weren't pointless- their efforts made the allies acquiesce to the Japanese, and agree to their terms. The Japanese still refused to surrender their emperor even after the nuclear bombs.

[@robotbjorn4952]

Carbon 12 Yes, they were allowed to save face. But Japan _lost_ the war, lost all of its overseas territories, and became a vassal to the United States. The emporer was allowed to retain his title, but MacArthur was essentially the ruler of Japan after the war. Even the Japanese recogonized that Hirohito answered to the American General.

[@TheGallantDrake]

@@carbon1255 refusal to surrender is not the same as victory.

[@Blox117]

@@Millstone_a_child_of_God just like america spared Afghanistan right?

[@snood3948]

"if you need to use Kamikaze, then you have already lost, unless you are fighting a weak willed enemy" Worked for the middle east.

[@stormthrush37]

Worth pointing out about two other well-documented cases of unexpected effectiveness of biplanes in WW2: the Nightsisters in the Soviet Union with their gliding bombing attacks by night, and the successful British Swordfish attack and sinking of the _Bismark._

[@DaSpineLessFish]

The Kamikaze is just a human guided missile, looking at the sheer tonnage that late war US Naval formations could throw out its no suprise that the Kamikazes are the best way to go about taking out ships. Battleships practically had destroyers welded to them by the end of the war

[@DaSpineLessFish]

Marty Man I have never heard of any Japanese aircraft capable of travelling faster than Mach 1 during the war. Either you're really high on PCP or you're baiting

[@blu3flare25]

Technically the concussive force from your own cannons is already alot stronger force than a "sound wave" from a aircraft like already mentioned.. Hes really trying to argue that a prop planes "sound blast" would break down the infrastructures of weaker ships.. LOL How delusional can you get?

[@blu3flare25]

My point being a majority of kamikazes where prop planes, because i thought thats what your original point was. Excuse me. Yes i know about the Ohka.. Also FYI the Ohka was rocket powered, the jet powered version never saw service so get your facts straight.. It had a top speed of 500MPH, That still doesn't even BREAK THE SOUND BARRIER... SO YOUR ARGUMENT of the "sound blast" breaking down the infrastructures of ships is COMPLETE BULLSHIT... Also stop arguing about things i didn't say you schizo.. P.S. I already knew about the various jet engines like the Mitsubishi's NE-330 long before this argument came about, so your not special for knowing about Japanese technology. They copied the German BMW 003.. WOW they where allies and copied technology how amazing...

[@blu3flare25]

Alright you win, have fun in conspiracytard delusion land...

[@artificernathaniel3287]

Sound barrier is over 800 miles per hour, and these okas could only top out in the 700s in a dive. Besides, sonic booms don't do much to ships which have to endure the noise of 15 inch cannons firing.

[@johngeverett]

As others have already observed, your detailed research and excellent presentations are always among the best on YT. You hold my interest throughout the video.

[@isaacmendonca2357]

In regular attacks the loses would be actually double or triple to the ones you mentioned due to Torpedo-Bombers and Dive-Bombers having a crew ranging from 2 to 3 members depending on plane model. Still great content you are probably my favourite military history youtube channel.

[@LewisRenovation]

thanks for the great education video

[@magistrumartium]

educational

[@jcfleming3]

I recently found your channel and it's quickly become a staple during any downtime I have. As someone from a military family who grew up listening to my grandfather's stories from the frontlines of France in WW2, my father's deployment in the jungles of Vietnam, and my older brother's in the Middle East I've always been fascinated by military history (although I myself chose a career in medicine). Prior to finding your channel I longed for more analytical discussion than what superficial television documentaries provide but too often didn't have the time to read long textbooks. Your videos are so incredibly well thought out and beautifully illustrated it would be a shame if you no longer made them. I know myself and thousands of others greatly enjoy what you're creating although at this stage I'm a poor medical student with tremendous debt. I can assure you when I draw a salary in a few months I will be a regular contributor to your patreon. I've never thanked a KZbinr but for doing what you do without adequate compensation, thank you.

[@TheMrNilsb]

By far the best channel about military history. Amazing work!!!

[@NiumeLTU]

20 min of ww2 history what could be better?

[@jaaksootak318]

21 minutes of WW2 history.

[@Arclight104]

Makes you wonder just how costly the invasion of the Japanese Home Islands would have been given the number of kamikaze planes and boats they had stored up to attack the initial allied landings?

[@Shenaldrac]

Well he did do a video on the planned US invasion of Japan, so wonder no more!

[@LtKharn]

Not sure the cost on the Allies but the opening bombing would have been horrific on Japan.

[@carbon1255]

Uhhh, they probably wouldn't have lost. The allies morale was SERIOUSLY hurt by kamikaze. What would be the point to wipe the Japanese off the face of the earth? too costly. Even nukes did not make them surrender, so the allies settled on the terms the Japanese put forwards before hand - they would keep their emperor and he would not go on trial. Do you even remember how the soviets lost the winter war with FINLAND? to even contemplate taking the home islands of Japan is insane. You would have to destroy it to such an extent it would not be worth taking, at hideous cost. You think Vietnam was bad? oh boy. Not a good situation for anybody. Japan simply had to prove it would not surrender, to the last woman and child. And it certainly did that.

[@alexanderchenf1]

It would be a war of annihilation. You would have more flame thrower than mortars in the US invading force.

[@spaceman081447]

TO: Arclight104 RE: "Makes you wonder just how costly the invasion of the Japanese Home Islands would have been . . . " U.S. planners estimated around a million Allied casualties. "A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that invading Japan would cost 1.7-4 million American casualties, including 400,000-800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan." Reference: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

[@kstreet7438]

This is a goldmine of a channel. Every video is amazing from start to finish.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

thank you

[@kstreet7438]

Military History Visualized thank you !!

[@gregwarner3753]

Demonstrated the effectivness of a missile with an active terminal guidance system. Modern equivalent is a medium range ballistic missile coming straight down under full acceleration onto the middle of a flight deck. One crippled carrier.

[@schmid1.079]

You know you are doing something wrong when you call conventional attacks suicidal compared to kamikaze. :P

[@apudharald2435]

schmid1.0 i recall reading a seventies book on the Midway Campaign that made the point that conventional attacks were quite suicidal: if memory serves, only one badly wounded Ensign survived out of all dive bomber crews committed by the US.

[@schmid1.079]

apud harald Yes, as said in the video.

[@TLTeo]

To be precise, at Midway one ensign survived out of the hopelessly outdated TBD torpedo bombers that approached the Japanese fleet with no fighter escort, no speed, and at sea level. The SBD Dauntless pilots that showed up later at altitude and with fighter support had a much higher survival rate (in no small part because the TBD pilots' sacrifice had pulled the Japanese CAP at low altitude).

[@devinthierault]

Never tell me the odds!

[@Iason29]

Look, no matter how unmatched the Japanese were in the war, schmid1.0 has a a point. History has shown many examples of lesser powers overcoming or able to resist stronger opponents. Kamikaze is all about psychology, the loss of hope for the war and loss of genuine fighting spirit of the Japanese. Even beginning to head down the path of thought, of thinking a war on mathematical terms, and excuse your policies based on loss of pilots to hit ratios, is proof that you seize to be a a true soldier, and you have lost all motivation to achieve certain goals you have set out upon on the war, and are now blurred in thought. The Japanese, sure they proved to us mathematically they achieved a surprising result of better combat effectiveness. But all this is complete BS and irrelevant if one understands the Art of war.. War isn't about how well you fight, it's how you manage to most quickly achieve your goals with the least fighting possible. The japanese leadership failed to be creative enough, to begin to think some new ways to resist the enemy properly and not use their soldiers in this fashion.

[@trooper9836]

Another very informative piece of history. An uncle of my sister in law's was on the receiving end of such an attack. It left him traumatized for the rest of his life.

[@RamdomView]

Does the accuracy of conventional attack take into account the degrading quality of Japanese pilots throughout the war? I know they started out with excellent pilots who were aggressive and pressed home their attacks and then died for it.

[@4IN14094]

Alex Ye There are so many factors that wasn't take into account,but the list of ships damaged or sunk tells the story: mostly Small ships, mostly Destroyers, some LCS, a few numbers of cargo ships and landing ships, minesweper, etc, most of the bigger ships would receive field repairable damage, only a handful of big ships were effectively put out of conbat(such as USS Enterprise and USS Bunker hill) It's safe to say, that this is the only way the Japanese can do reasonably effective damage to the US fleet at the time of the war.

[@carbon1255]

US fleet had hundreds of destroyers which prevented air missions, they also cost $6 million at the time. Stupidity to suggest destroyers were not the most important things to take out. and that it was not super cost effective for a few measly planes. Sure, the more armoured ships like battleships would only lose 20-30 people, but it was at the cost of one man and a tank of gas. And carriers would have to repair for several days, preventing japanese homes being firebombed and so on (air cover provided from carriers was suspended) And the issue wasn't really quality, just that the 13 - 15 year olds carrying out the attacks struggled with the controls.

[@RamdomView]

To clarify, I wanted to know about the statistical spread of conventional attack accuracy. Were conventional attacks consistently around the average given, or did it vary throughout the war?

[@RamdomView]

Perhaps I should have worded my comment better. I wanted to know about the consistency of accuracy of conventional attack throughout the war.

[@NinjatoBlade]

Its a bit ironic - the Japanese favored "Quallity over Quantity" for the beginning of their doctrine due to scarcity of materials - a very logical decision. However, they also had one of the largest carrier groups, and often favored overwhelming force (pretty much the history of most of their warfare tactics, although there were note-able outliers). Thus, due to their mobile battlegroups and favoritism for concentrated battlegroups, they tended to field both quantity and quality at the start of the war, which resulted in their string of victories at the start. Unfortunately for them, the United States pilots eventually learned of the technical failures of the Zero, and this along with the fact that the Allies would cycle their aces back home for training of new recruits while the Axis kept aces on the front to hold off the enemy, time was not on the side of the Japanese.

[@Taluien]

Hahaha... Womble being relatively harmless... :D

[@4IN14094]

Taluien It's Soviet Womble we are talking about afterall. :p

[@ameanasaur]

This is your best video so far. I learned so much that it changed my view on kamikaze attacks, which is something rare these days.

[@UnintentionalSubmarine]

I remember reading about the Kamikaze attacks as a kid (25-30 years ago) and the author called them cowardly, and I was truly baffled. I mean I could feel the unpleasantness in it, sending people to die with certainty, but to then call the pilots cowards? I never got that, and felt it was a betrayal of those that died like that. Were they not brave in foregoing their lives in the hope that it might save others? But at that time I didn't have a critical mind to what I read, few kids do, so it remained a weird thing I never really got the hang of. As I grew older I came to understand that the author was embittered. Someone had done something he considered reprehensible, something he couldn't understand, and them being from a regime that can at best be called brutal, he just used the most basic insult against military forces, that of cowardice. The pilots that flew were brave to a man. Just getting in the air near the Allied naval forces must have taken a lot of guts, and these men had to take a handful steps further. That said, I do think there were cowards in this. People who were willing to order other people to do this, by way of disgrace and peer pressure, but never actually taking the responsibility on their shoulders of saying "yes, I order you to do this officially." That takes all the rational thought out of it, that takes all the clinical and cynical efficiency away, and simply makes them enormously horrible people. A superior officer in war might have to sacrifice people under him. It is brutal, but it's age old, and it is at least somewhat accepted because afterwards said officer will likely face scrutiny of that. So what those officers did was to skirt around that, refusing to take responsibility for their actions, but taking all the accolades that might come with a lot 'volunteers'. I can't accept such behaviour at all.

[@The_Viscount]

I remember reading that biplanes were very effective against AAA on ships as GFCS systems were calibrated for faster moving targets and had difficulty tracking the slower planes with any accuracy. Hence why the Fairey Swordfish, despite being a biplane, was kept in service against the German and Italian Fleets.

[@muffinman4515]

“Not a Serious Threat...” >displays image of Soviet Womble Lmao

[@Axe99]

Great vid, learned a heap, keep up the great work :). Not meant as a criticism - just some supplementary info, all from Friedman's AA Guns and Gunnery, in case of use for the future: - Baka/Ohka rocket-powered kamikazes very difficult to hit, but very inaccurate, and often missed regardless of aa fire (you kind of touch on this with your example, without spelling it out) - Kamikazes became less effective over time - it took fourteen attempts to sink a ship in Oct-44, but 27 in Feb-May 45. - While kamikazes were very dangerous, it's worth noting that in Apr-45, only 35 per cent of aircraft sent at by US fleet were kamikazes. - CAPs typically shot down 60 per cent of a group of Kamikazes, even when the CAP was greatly outnumbered. - CAP interception of kamikazes much more effective further out (hence radar pickets), in no small part because dispersal of kamikazes under attack meant far fewer found their target - In worst case CAP vs kamikaze interceptions, if a strike was intercepted by a CAP a quarter of its size, 10 nautical miles from its target, only fifty per cent were able to carry on to make an attack. If the kamikazes were intercepted 50nm out, only 2 per cent found their targets. - During Feb-May 45, an estimated 1100 kamikaze sorties were launched, 500 were splashed by CAP or turned back, 420 missed due to AA fire, 180 hit ships.

[@TheReaper569]

Can you please further explain in another video or just a comment: "in summer 1944 the US fleet defence got too effective and devastated such concentrated groups" How? Did they upgraded ship based AA weapon and ammo? Their carrier based fighter models got better? Or test and exprience in combat allowed the us navy to optimize conventional defences more effectively? Such as AA, Radar intel, Fighter escorts, interception deployment

[@RollerDelayed]

Introduction of the VT fuse, improvements in fire control helped. Improvements of defensive ship formations. Just look at what happened to the Japanese strike group that attacked the USS SoDak's battlegroup during the Mariana Turkey Shoot.

[@brightgreen3270]

By this point, most ships had large numbers of 40 mm Bofors guns, which made a huge difference.

[@carbon1255]

Nah, they simply produced hundreds of destroyers covered with anti air, and reached critical mass, such that heavy losses were unavoidable.

[@alexanderbutler2989]

Swarms of high performance carrier based aircraft. (Hellcat and Corsair) operating as Combat air patrol as well as directly attacking incoming enemy planes far from their targets and in massed formations. Radar directed 40 mm and 5 inch AA. How do you think the Hellcat won its 19-1 kill ratio? Or the 11-1 by the Corsair.

[@advancedmagnetism4682]

Excellent video. I've learnt so much from this channel and it's presented in a really good format. Better than any documentary I've seen (and they had bigger budgets).

[@fanta4897]

What about kamikaze submarines? How effective/ineffective and clever/primitive were they?

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

need to look into them

[@stupidburp]

They were effective to some degree but were limited by poor speed, range, and coordination. This made it largely a matter of luck to encounter the target as range increased. Japanese submarine technology was in general good but the midget suicide attack models of course were limited by the late war resource situation and their disposable nature. There were cases of some of them sinking before reaching their targets, most likely due to mechanical problems. Japanese command also suspected that being in the sea rather than the air would pose more psychological temptation to have survival instinct take over or otherwise have second thoughts during the trip. In some cases sub hatches were sealed closed in order to prevent ditching by the operator. The operators were not necessarily any less committed to the mission than those in aircraft but human nature had to be accounted for. Sealing hatches was like having a second person stand ready with a katana while committing seppuku by cutting open one's belly with a knife. An insurance policy to make sure the action is completed regardless of any difficulties during the process.

[@patrickdegenaar9495]

Apparently, Japanese subs were totally ineffective because they went for the destroyers in battle rather than supply ships.

[@anchorandchain]

Just got an ad for visiting Japan before this video came on...... I don’t think I’ll be heading there anytime soon. Excellent work as always, mate.

[@artios162]

"Cause conventional tactics were inherently suicidal" - sound like a good thing to raise moral

[@davidmurphy8190]

Thanks!

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Thank you!

[@jambondepays1969]

One thing about the naming mentioned at 4:00. It's actually not a coincidence at all that the characters happen to read "Kamikaze"; when writing in kanji, there are multiple readings possible for every word and Japanese naming conventions play up to that. Japanese names are not just denominations the way Western names are, most of them have a meaning conveyed through the specific kanji used to write the name (for example, the name "Ichiro" can be written 郎 or 朗, which respectively mean "first son" and "dawn"). "Kamikaze" means "divine wind" literally, and the term was used to refer to a typhoon which was said to have saved Japan from naval invasion by the Mongols. It's not hard to make the parallel with the threat of American invasion; "Shimpu Tokubetsu Kogekitai" was the official name used in reports and paperwork, but it was likely that the pilots used and took pride in the name as well. The Japanese army knew what they were doing when picked those specific kanji : )

[@qk-tb2df]

the only divine wind they felt was being vaporized by our nuclear weapons dicks

[@viano9541]

4:07 there is a song called kamikazetokubetsukougekitai (神風特別攻撃隊) - kamikaze special attack corps. I'm not so experienced with japanese to know the proper reading of 神風, but there is music from japan attributed to them using the reading kamikaze.

[@lddcavalry]

Desperation usually means you've already lost.

[@timur22993]

But you usually don't want to lose on any terms your opponent gives you.

[@JuniorAngel8888]

Tell that to the Soviet Union. (German army 30 miles away from center of Moscow.) (Battle of Moscow; German losses: 250,000 vs Soviet losses: 1,000,000)

[@timur22993]

Lets not talk about Soviet Union and their losses. Most of those were self inflicted, not the casualties...

[@carbon1255]

Britain was also desperate at one point. And lets be honest, Japan won an important victory, it was their terms that were accepted after two nukes and they still did not surrender.

[@archiveacc3248]

@@carbon1255 you mean the terms given to them by the Allies. It wasn't like the Japanese were dictating the surrender to the US

[@T4nkcommander]

I think this is your best video yet. Well done!

[@FRIEND_711]

I love this video which you made, I faved it and all the reasoning you have given are spot on. I still must protest ^^" I know for a fact, since I had family members in these Special Attack Corps (mostly escort roles, 2 were kamikaze pilots.) that there were in fact coordinated attacks and plans, training for the Kamikaze, They all still believed that conventinal attacks would have done more damage then the Special Attacks. And I may not have as much information as you do, which I`m honeslty kind of jelly over :,D, but with the information that I have plus the one which you presented in the video, still convincises me that my family members opinions were correct assuptions. A lot of the kamikaze`s that succesfully done damage to the U.S navy were done by skilled pilots, for example the USS "Bunker Hill" A ship that was hit by 2 kamikazes on May 11th(which is tommorow now that I think of it) were hit by pilots smart enough and skilled enough to follow and not get detected by US planes that were returning to said carrier. another is the very first kamikaze attack that convinced the Japanese military command that they should go with the more kamikaze missions. Yukio Seki, the man who died to sink the USS St. Lo was one skilled pilot who hit his mark, even when his plane was damaged. Not to mention, this is something thats not addrest as much, but the tactics of skip bombing were very effective in sinking the japanese transport fleet, planes could come low below raidar and stay there as they drop their bombs and make them skip to the target as they fly away. I mention this, because Yukio was actually suppost to be the captian of the First Imperial Japanese Navy skip bombing air squadron, every member of the First Kamikaze striks(Team Asahi, Yamato,Shikishima and yamazakura) were dive bomber pilots trianed in skip bombing tactics. And when comparing the succsess with the army who lounched a skip bombing attack on the same day with 22 Lillys(Army 3rd air squadron: 飛行第３戦隊）which by the way the Lilly`s had nearly no training to skip bomb. It`s clear as day that Yukio`s team were sucssesful because of their skills since the Lillys did ZERO damage to the american fleet. Also, what I`m about to say is an assumption, an assuption made by watching so many documentaries of air battles in the pacific war and I could be wrong about this so, I know it may be flaud but i still want to add this. From what I see/hear/watch it seems that earlier in the war, for some reason, japanese pilots never munuverd when attacked and they got picketed off one by one which is why the casualties seem high but in later stages of the war, they were fighting for their family and their homes thus it looks like, they seemed to be manuvering more, to insure that they would hit their target. Like I said this is an assuption and I could be wrong compliately but it just seems like that. In the end I dont know if conventinal attacks would have done anything, maybe you`re right in this. but still I need to protest. I hope I was able to make somekind of point and if anyone read this, By god you are patian and lovely :,D thank you. And Thank you for making this video ^-^

[@SteveMHN]

I think Kamikaze attacks were for more sane and rational than the suicidal offensives in ww 1, where infantry would just walk across no mans land and be cut to pieces by machine gun fire, just for a few miles of mud.

[@paulcateiii]

Václav Fejt worse

[@kitfisto2347]

SteveMHN A few miles is a little generous

[@toxicmongerofthehatefulbro5745]

I respectfully disagree only on the Basis that WW1 was an entirely new beast from how wars were fought before. There were maneuvers and more complex plans then just walking across no mans land..Sometimes, yet those men often fought to Live, none of them went into battle Planning on dying. To me, Accepting you'll probably die and planning to die is two different things.

[@maciejpociecha6357]

That's an old and inaccurate view of WWI

[@MikhaelAhava]

Yeah... but only the Western front was full of these "suicidal offensives" for a few miles of mud. The rest of the world was something else, even the openning days of the war, the Western front was full of maneuver. There was planning, and tried to have the men ready. "Sane" it's more sane to go fight and accepting to get hit, possibly dead afterwards than being told, there is NO way, not even that slim chance of HOPE of life, to survive. I see your point, by Winter 1914, they were so dug in that only tanks later by 1916-18 could make more miles of land taken. Besides, there is 21-25 years of gap during this time, I mean having men face to face meters apart and muskets facing the middle of their eyes seems like suicide.

[@tonycantrell9547]

Very well researched and put together video. awesome job.

[@seegurke93]

20:41 you say GM4 Bete instead of G4M Betty (Bätti ausgesprochen) :D just for you to know as I know you always want to improve ;)

[@IronWarhorsesFun]

WE ARE THE BORG WE WISH YOU TO IMPROVE YOURSELF.

[@mrguysnailz4907]

also pls call them the japanese names :>

[@spindash64]

Hey beter

[@VersusARCH]

Type 1 bomber G4M "Hamaki". Screw the US designations.

[@samadams2203]

Excellent video! This is really great stuff to know and makes excellent sense!

[@gequitz]

It's rational if you don't consider the fact the war was effectively lost for the Japanese by then.

[@МахамбетМамыров]

anything to defend homeland from invasion. They tried so hard to convince US that invasion will be too costly... well they succeeded in that

[@francoandres3850]

The same goal the Finns had during the Winter and Continuation Wars, the goal to keep their integrity and sovereignity while technically losing the war.

[@tonyennis3008]

They did not succeed preventing an invasion. After they surrendered, we occupied them. They are fortunate we were not like them vis a vis Nanking.

[@tonyennis3008]

They had no response to B-29s in general. Atomic weapons were not needed but simply saved Japanese lives and infrastructure (ironically)

[@tonyennis3008]

+Marty Man I have posited that if achieving strategic goals is the definition of winning, then the Japanese won WW2. They doesn't go over well at the office :-D

[@luismdgr]

Excellent video Mr MHV!!!

[@Dlw-bz3wj]

they work in hoi4...

[@MikhaelAhava]

Hmm?

[@MikhaelAhava]

I don't think you can kamikaze there, anyways, just use China for manpower as Japan.

[@MrTLSfan]

MiguelPpM you can

[@Tricerius]

As a matter of fact, and funnily enough, using old biplanes for kamikaze duties in HoI4 works wonders.

[@carbon1255]

You can kamikaze as any fascist nation without their own focus tree, and also Japan of course. Plus bicycles now!!

[@bryanschultz6109]

Nice video, but you missed a few things: 1. During conventional attacks by D3A Val, D4Y Judy, B5N Kate & B6N Jill, they had 2-3 crew per plane. That really skews the amount deaths upward. 2. MXY-7 needed G4M3e motherships and often few if any would return, more dead on the other side. 3. Another advantage of the K5Y Willow, wooden biplane = low radar cross section. Harder to see on radar. 4. MXY-7 were mostly metal with non-structural wooden part like throttles and instrument panels. Those rocket motors would disintegrate a wooden plane. Also the Ki-115 was a purpose-built Kamikaze made of steel, not aluminum. Which was a less strategic material. Keep up the good work.

[@sharkfinbite]

I am not going to lie. Japan is arguably the most underrated most fierce opponents in ww2 and America has ever faced. They never let up in intensity even when it was nearing the end. The Nazis did eventually lose that intensity nearing the end. Japan never did. A lot of people do not know this, but I discovered a long time ago about the nukes. Japan stated they would still never let up and concede to any concessions to giving up any lands they still have abroad or agree to all the demands the allies and other nations victims of their actions. They would accept a surrender but they would not accept losing anything they had left and and wanted to maintain some power. They made it clear they would still fight if they do not accept their demands to the surrender, even if their lands were literally were going to be bombed by a thousand super explosions. This means they were implying and were full aware of they were about to be hit with big massive attacks, and just dropping two of the nukes on them was not going to automatically make them change their mind. They were planning for the long haul, and fighting till the bitter end until they took control of all Japan (making it all the way to the capital would not do it. They had to take control of everything). It literally took not just two nukes but also a additional Soviet military action on Japan to convince them to give up. If any of those three factors (the other two was the 2 nuke bombs) was left out they would not have finally caved in. They were just that stubborn and determined. Everybody knew it was going to be a blood bath going invading Japan. A lot of them agreed it would be very likely to be far worse and awful. That is why I think they are the underrated and were the most fierce opponents we ever faced.

[@adampaula1863]

Well you stupid yankees always attack on other nations

[@bjornjwagner7252]

Tokubetsu Kōgekitai (神風特別攻撃隊, "Divine Wind Special Attack" ...

[@gianlucaborg195]

Tora. Tora. Tora

[@buster7797]

You put womble as the not a serious threat picture. 10/10 accuracy.

[@geminiapollo2319]

*BANZAI*

[@ME-hm7zm]

*hits throttle and goes into final approach*

[@patrickmcshane7658]

Tenno heka banzai.

[@caorusso4926]

Kid

[@mervviscious]

My fathers Destroyer The USS Phelps was hit during the ring of steel. He wasn't badly injured. he was knock down metal stairs and messed his back up. He was in the Battle of the Coral Sea and The Battle of Midway. The Phelps sank the Lexington. H describe it to me when I was in my 50's. Before this he really never talked of the war..

[@longyu9336]

Osama Bin Laden watching videos about the Special Attack Corps: "Interesting technique"

[@Fr1thar]

“Ill take 5000 toyota’s”

[@TheLPN05Fan]

Super Video, extrem informativ, wie jedes mal! Great Video, extremly informative, like everytime!

[@juangonzalez9848]

Big problem with your math. Your assumption of 60% losses from the CAP on the larger number of planes could equal an almost total destruction of a smaller force. Example being 150 bomber attacking a carrier being intercepted by 60 planes. There is a limit those 60 planes could do before the 150 could hit the carrier. However, if there were 60 bombers attacking versus 60 interceptors, you could possibly eliminate all attackers. At least a far larger chance compared to the far larger numbers difference.

[@stupidburp]

Another problem is that some patrols could miss the target entirely because the fleet was not where it was expected to be. This would usually result in 100% losses of suicide aircraft with no hits.

[@Nonsense010688]

those numbers are obviously the average and could go in both direction, changing the perimeters. Average plane numbers are probably base on carrier group load out. Personally I think he overlooks that conventional attacks have the advantage of potential getting more experience out of those, while kamikaze only could resolve in less cable pilots over the time. Further more I don't see how the more sophisticated tactics could not have improve conventional attacks as well.

[@carbon1255]

Kamikaze were not patrols, they were from sighted ships, also the us had so MANY ships, it would be hard to avoid them. This is not actually true, as kamikaze did not dogfight, and could outrun and outperform the defence aircraft, as compared to bombers. A suicide mission would result in no air losses from the us, but they would have a much higher survival to target rate. This is also taking into account they were 13 and didn't know to dodge.

[@stupidburp]

Most kamikaze air attacks were from land bases. Ships right at the shore could of course be seen but most of the time they will be further out and an attacking group will have to search for them. The ocean is vast and even a large number of ships can be hard to find. They would have some information giving them an approximate location but sometimes that information would be wrong.

[@Tesswrench111]

Hats off to the early pioneers of precision guided weaponry.

[@greenflagracing7067]

I think you have to reconsider "success". 30 transports were sunk, but 150 hits were made on DE, DE, CA, CL and BB types, of which 13 DDs and 1 DE were sunk. The IJN and IJA expended material and men to attack these ships types in lieu of more critical targets: transports (carrying invasion troops) and carriers (air support). 36 hits on CV, CVL and CVE types were made, resulting in 3 CVE sinkings. you'd have to count many of these hits as "firepower kills" because the carriers ceased flight operations for various periods of time. so these were successful in that sense, but most of the struck CV types were repaired and returned to the fight. so huge opportunities were lost on less critical targets. radar pickets were attacked multiple times, BBs were hit 13 times. BBs were enormously hard to sink, the Navy had, I'm guessing, 500 or so DDs and DEs available in the Pacific. If the purpose of Specka Attack planes was to stop an invasion, the loss of a DD, while tragic, would not have the same effect on the war as the loss of a loaded APD (200 invasion troops). And it goes without saying that kamikazes didn't stop any invasion. Inadequate training means more than just attacks vulnerable to CAP or AA defense. Even under near optimal conditions, ship identification was problematic: consider the IJN's misidentification of US CVEs as CVs, DDs as CA, etc., at Leyte Gulf, during a extended surface battle. misidentification by experienced pilots was chronic throughout the war - the IJN search plane (the aviator probably had 600 hours of flight time) launched from the cruiser Tone at Midway initially misidentified the US fleet by not recognizing carriers for crucial minutes. Some Special Attack fliers might have had 20 hours of flight time, no combat experience, had never seen a USN ship, approaching evading targets at 300 mph with only a short window to identify a ship and maneuver for an attack, with flak and defending fighters in the air. I wonder how many pilots or aviators died thinking they were crashing a CV when it was a DD. I believe the first feasibility studies of anti ship cruise missiles used kamikaze attack data as a starting point.

[@carbon1255]

Even if the damage was cleared in a day, even just killing 20 - 30 hands on the ship which was very minimal, it was easily cost effective. It is one 13-15 year old boy for fucks sake, what other damage do you expect them to be able to do? the planes were useless, there was not enough fuel for proper missions. DDs were attacked because they killed more allies, pure and simple. They were also the AA screen protecting capital ships. A kamikaze could take out an entire destroyer, totally worth it. 329 hands, certainly more valuable than taking out 200 infantry. Also less covering fire for those troops.

[@slick4401]

As usual, a top grade analysis by a brilliant unbiased mind.

[@Alex-cw3rz]

Two things I would add is that the effectiveness of a Kamikaze attack, was majorly hampered by how armoured a ship was such as british aircraft carriers fairing much better. Also noted was that the Royal navy took a few hours to repair there's ships to be fully operational whereas American ships took a few days and even take months to repair, which depending on who was attacked would make damaging a ship even a waste of time. Also the Ohka could go 576mph, 170~mph faster than you said just saying still like your videos.😛

[@Alex-cw3rz]

By the way this isn't just a post to bash Americans or something it's just some extra things I knew about that would add to effectiveness.

[@Alex-cw3rz]

For cites there is a bit on Kamikaze Wikipedia article, so you don't have to read a few books to get a few lines about Kamikaze attacks. 😂

[@4IN14094]

That is depending on what kind of damage and the effectiveness of damage controls, there are many case of US aircraft carrier received what seemingly out of battle damage there were fixed within hours and resumes flight ops, given the intensity of the Pacific naval battles, the US actually do a great job on keeping the ships combat effective.

[@AndrewsGamarra]

a good read............ www.armouredcarriers.com/

[@AEB1066]

This is a common misconception. "When the 1,000-kilogram (2,200 lb) bomb that it was carrying detonated in the water only 50 feet (15.2 m) from the side of the ship, the resulting shock wave badly damaged two Corsairs parked on the deck and severely shook the ship. The initial damage assessment was that little harm had been done, although vibrations had worsened, but this was incorrect as the damage to the hull structure and plating proved to be extensive." This happened to the Illustrious in 1945. The rigidity of the armour made the British carriers susceptible to damage that the American carriers where not. It also made repairs much slower if the fight deck was damaged. But the biggest issue was the lack of planes. A US fleet carrier of 1944 carried more than twice the planes on a similar displacement. The role of the carrier is to put aircraft into the sky, so the armoured carrier failed in this role and they were all phased out by the 1950s while some of the Essex class US carriers served into the 1970s.

[@GregAtlas]

Good video. The only thing I felt was left out was the morale benefits and detriments for both sides due to the tactic.

[@ddjay1363]

+ Greg Atlas Good point.

[@CarlosRios1]

"Kami-katze"

[@varana]

The letter z is pronounced like ts in German, that why he says "kamikatse".

[@anonviewerciv]

"Na-see Party"

[@WordBearer86]

This is, I think, the best presentation in which the grim pragmatism that can come into play during a war is shown. Dan Carlin has a term I love for this kind of thing; Logical Insanity. Another case of this I love is when Zhukov, or perhaps it was Khrushchev, when at a gathering of soviet-allied commanders as the war in Europe was being finished had explained to Eisenhower that the reason why the Red Army had often not bothered to employ mine clearing operations to help clear the way ahead for an advancing force was that casualty statistics done by soviet analysts showed that the advancing force stood to take casualties that were roughly equal in number to the amount of casualties they would take if those areas had been defended by a machinegun - and that it was a waste of time clearing mines, which would slow the advancing force unnecessarily.

[@ziadhaithemamin1431]

I mean when you think about it less pilots less planes to destroy a expensive as Fuck ship then umm seems like a logical step for a honor driven desperate country that need to win this war anyway possible

[@carbon1255]

Also young boys were used, like 13 year olds, and they were also better in some ways as they were very light thus the plane performance and speed increased. They were not pressed in, they were just allowed to volunteer as children. They were not fighting to win at this point, they were fighting for their emperor, and after they refused to surrender him after the nuclear bombs were dropped, the allies agreed to Japan's terms.

[@danielc7964]

Minor input: You put "cashed" instead of "crashed" at 5:40 regarding the ineffectiveness of AA guns. But this was insanely informative. Well done.

[@MANKIND666]

comrades..after we died,see you under the cherry tree in yasukuni.. if you will die before me..please wait there in absolute

[@CrabTastingMan]

*You mean see you with "50 virgins in heaven for each of us."* KAMIKAZE = *ORIGINAL ALLAHU ACKBAR*

[@oceanhome2023]

CrabTastingMan You are comparing terrorism to Kamakazi . The goal of the terror attack is terror. Kill and maim innocent soft noncombatants . Kamikaze was an effective military tactic against military targets and they died honorably

[@MANKIND666]

In blossom today, then scattered; Life is so like a delicate flower. How can one expect the fragrance to last forever?

[@fahadalghamdi8948]

Ron Lawson the Japanese had plans to strap bombs to balloons and blow it in the West coast of America not realy honourable

[@jordanrea2311]

Adecodoo nailed it fucken nailed it you want bombs then US will give you bombs

[@sameyers2670]

Thank you. I find your videos fascinating

[@Raptor747]

First off, .50 caliber machine guns weren't really used in the AA role for USN warships by the time kamikaze tactics were employed. Secondly, 20-caliber fire was certainly enough to shoot down a plane, but the reason it was not very effective against kamikaze attacks was that their effective range was too short, and the damage inflicted was not enough to outright destroy or knock the enemy plane out of the sky before it could crash into the ship. If it was a conventional attack, these planes would not make it back to a carrier or airfield due to the damage inflicted. Thirdly, it's worth noting that kamikaze tactics deteriorated in effectiveness over time, as the Allies adapted to it and as the pilots and planes employed as kamikazes became increasingly inferior in quality. Fourthly, it's important to remember that kamikaze tactics are not really sustainable. The more you invest in it at the expense of conventional air superiority and attack capability, the more you lose your reserve of well-trained, experienced, well-equipped pilots who are capable of attacking the enemy and returning. Kamikazes are also utter crap at fighting other aircraft. Japan didn't exactly have the industry or resources to spare to throw away planes by the hundreds just to attack a couple of destroyers/destroyer escorts. Lastly, widespread adoption of kamikaze tactics by Japan basically sealed its fate. The increasingly large American heavy/strategic bomber fleet was almost certainly given greater freedom to bomb Japanese cities to inflict as much destruction and death as possible as a response to the fanatical and suicidal tactics employed by the Japanese air forces. Even if kamikazes were effective enough to stop naval forces from approaching the Japanese mainland (they weren't), they would be completely and utterly unable to do anything about the heavy/strategic bomber raids that were gradually destroying every Japanese city. It also no doubt played a major factor in the decision to unleash nuclear weapons against Japan, too. By employing kamikazes on such a massive scale, Japan was showing just how insane, fanatical, and even suicidal it was. Ultimately, the kamikazes were NOT nearly as effective as they were hoped to be. Rather than a relatively small number of them taking out capital ships left and right, hundreds were being thrown at task forces just to land a few hits and sink a picket. Put another way: yes, kamikazes were more effective than Japan's conventional attack capability by 1944. But it is also more logistically efficient to execute all of your prisoners of war than it is to secure them, guard them, feed and house them, etc. In the small scale, this is fine, but in the larger picture, it screws you over: it makes your enemies vastly more motivated to defeat you, and convinced that the only way to deal with you is utter annihilation.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

well, 1) you seem to forget that DDs were the biggest ships on Picket duty and far smaller ships were there to support them, they were equipped with .50 cals or do you think I made that stuff up, because ??? Maybe take a look at Rielly's Book.

[@caif4]

SaltyWaffles 2. It's stated in the video why 20mm cannons were not effective. It's not because it can't shoot down a plane. It's like you said low range and can't outright destroy the plane. You restated what he said. 3. With how bad they got later on it must have been even worse to do conventional attacks. 4. Conventional attacks were not sustainable either. US tactics and equipment was largely better than Japanese equivalent (with some outliers like 343 kokutai or 244th sentai (I think it was this one, the guys that got really good with the ki 61 and ki 100)). Also a lot of Kamikaze attacks made use of obsolete aircraft. It didn't really require much industry to sustain them. 5. Japan's fate was sealed after Midway and New Guinea. Midway destroyed their carrier fleet and New Guinea bled them of any experienced pilots. Kamikaze attacks were just the way of delaying their loss.

[@carbon1255]

Salty is just full of shit. USA propaganda, they put out a lot of statements saying how useless the attacks were, but cost of planes to ships, and men lost, kamikaze is one of the most brutally effective strategies there was. Planes cost nothing, they carry basically no fuel in them, and they have one person on board. Japan was spitting them out, and built secret factories in mountains to churn out suicide planes. destroyers cost $6m in the currency of the day, A6ms and Ki-43 were effectively free, as they were old aircraft and not useful any more, and of course sakura were almost costless also. Japan could not afford to fuel them, which is why they went to war with the us in the first place as they needed oil and rubber. Kamikaze halves the cost of fuel for air missions, and is deadlier all round. Japan's insanely high population also gave them pretty much endless reserves of soldiers. Japan's strategy worked! they never surrendered unconditionally, and remain an empire to this day. Hirohito never went on trial, because allied forces were not prepared to do what it took to beat Japan in the way you describe, so the opposite of what you say is true.

[@chayophan3078]

Brilliant! Every word!

[@javierarreaza5601]

One of your best videos ever.

[@abdiawl736]

I don't understand why killing while protecting yourself is seen as a normal and killing while getting yourself killed is seen as strange way of fighting

[@kameronjones7139]

Because one is guaranteed death while the other you have a chance to live

[@puppeli]

the way you phrased your question seems strange to me. "killing while protecting yourself" should rather be "risking your life for a chance to kill the enemy". And "killing while getting yourself killed" should be "sacrificing your life for a better chance to kill the enemy". After all, none of the pilots were guaranteed that they would be able to kill any enemies on a mission.

[@lespaulguitarist92]

it did had a major impact to the US seaman during that time. fighting an enemy that is willing to die.

[@carbon1255]

It is stupid propaganda, really is it that bad to suicidally attack and take out maybe twenty enemies on your own? No, it is pretty glorious in the Japanese world view. Imagining you can survive with a 0.00000001% chance of survival is just plain dumb. Japanese just understood the probability, and decided to trade the 0.00000001% for 19 more allies dead for his life than otherwise.

[@elzian4975]

Because it requires a completely different mindset.

[@dotista2008]

thank you for bringing down common preconception

[@ОлегКозлов-ю9т]

*TENNO HEIKA!!!!*

[@MANKIND666]

Олег Козлов banzai

[@juri8723]

BANZAI

[@tonykriss1594]

I already knew they had seriously think through the suicidal tactic and had sophisticated plan for it. But it's still quite a surprise to learn that kamikaze attack actually has less loss than conventional attack.

[@TheGyuuula]

You should put in the disclaimer, that "no cats were injured during the filming of this video" "kamikatze" trololol :D

[@stygn]

I just noticed that the Vernier calipers you sometimes use (at 9:00, "Limitations of Japanese Air Force) is not depicted correctly. The two "spikes" on the left side should be swapped around. They are for measuring the inside diameter.

[@J4ckCr0w]

You have to be a Shintoist to understand. Mathematics does not apply to Japanese traditional thinking.

[@deltoroperdedor3166]

J4ckCr0w could you please explain

[@stupidburp]

WW2 state shinto was not even real shinto. All the sects and religious leaders of the various faiths in Japan were persecuted by the state or forcibly disbanded if they did not fall in line with the official government propaganda. State shinto was basically a perversion of a religion that was intentionally weaponized. This is not unlike other faiths that have been misused as justification for violence.

[@MANKIND666]

nah,just an ultra nationalist brainwash propaganda

[@J4ckCr0w]

DelToro Perdedor Self sacrifice for the belief of contributing to a greater good and serving the Emperor's holy war. That is in as few words as possible. Western civilization rarely knows what self-sacrificing is, as the society is centered on the individuals benefit over the benefit of majority.

[@J4ckCr0w]

Stu Bur jihad, communism, satanism...

[@NITOPSMOVE]

Great content man! Very informative.

[@masterimbecile]

Kämikätse

[@gryphon9507]

Lead to the development of the 3" /50 (76.2mm) Mark 27, 33, and 34 automatic radar aimed Anti-Air gun mounts. As was stated the 20mm and 40mm was to small to stop a determined Kamikaze. At the time the 3" shell was the smallest shell that the US navy could fit a VT proximity fuse to. I have watched the test videos of those guns and man they shoot quick like every 2 seconds. That's a Sherman Tank shell being shot every two seconds, every second when it is a twin mount. These AA mounts were used from 48 to the 80s.

[@catriona_drummond]

This strategy is only rational if you regard pilots a resource like fuel, planes and so on. They are humans though. Planning missions that leave no survival option for the pilot at all IS insane. It's crossing a line, even if you lose less pilots that way. They are not cattle. It is an ethical problem, not a strategical one.

[@swagodaman6320]

Man up

[@carbon1255]

No, you have to be an idiot not to do it. It cost less lives! It is stupidity for you to not understand the maths! putting the lottery on as if you are going to win!

[@catriona_drummond]

That is where you err. Ethics are not about maths.

[@catriona_drummond]

You don't understand it. That's okay.

[@rigelbound6749]

Dude, this is WWII. Are you seriously bringing up ethics?

[@jameslawrie3807]

Another addition regarding high speed 'kamikaze' attacks. Late war aircraft occasionally had Rocket Assisted Take-Off rockets attached to them and these were used to increase the speed of the final attack run.

[@loreofmetal5604]

Why do people call it inhumane? is it less humane than using bombs to kill?

[@Riceball01]

Inhumane to the pilot maybe, but definitely no more inhumane to its target than any other weapon, that's for sure.

[@deltoroperdedor3166]

Surely not even comparable to fighting in the Soviet or Chinese army at the time

[@RalphReagan]

orva vusqa yes

[@carbon1255]

Not inhumane at all, they were heroes after all, and they protected their emperor from war trial and decapitation. Regardless of the army war crimes in china, they were still heroes dying for their country.

[@spindash64]

Soundwave 47 Though it does bring a question: what is a war hero? Can someone be a war hero if they fought for the wrong side, but fought with the greatest of desire to protect their comrades and their home, and fought with honor?

[@punman5392]

Also remember that often the cockpits and any other empty space in the aircraft were usually packed with explosives as well as the regular bombload and fuel

[@sangvinhun]

JET FUEL CANT MELT CARRIERS :)))

[@ronaldthompson4989]

I recall an add for Battlestations Pacific called Dairy of a Kamikaze if i recall correctly. The dialogue was set as a letter to his wife, and one part the stuck with me was "None of us will survive. If I am to die anyway, why not die a hero?" Pretty fair IMO

[@rimer82k]

*Desperate*

[@user-ny9qt2ov1k]

another interesting thing. the norwegian sabotour max manus said in his bok (with the same name) that after meting the king of norway in persion, he understood just a little bit more how the japanese could do "kamekaze".

[@Gonzalouchikari]

"Insane or Rational?" Dude, they are Japanese.