Navy Misc Info pt 2
 
Topics:
Decal Printing
long range fuel tanks
"Louis the Louse"
SHOHO aircraft at Coral Sea
VT Fuses etc
weathering hinomarus
Who bombed the USS Franklin?
Last kamikaze flight  
Mystery of Copahee and Saipan.  
"The Mission" and LBJ...  
Kamakaze Question (New)
Types of aircraft aboard Hosho? (New)
aircraft nomenclature (New)
First Kamikaze (New)
Did This Really Happen? (New)
Yamamoto mission (New)
 
Decal Printing
 
Posted By: Andrew Monroe <mailto:amonroe@spp.org?subject=Mr. Goodale>
Date: Wednesday, 18 July 2001, at 12:31 p.m.
 
When you make your own decals, what do you print them from your computer onto so you'll be able to put them on a model?
What size would you use for a 1/72nd scale model?
Did the 'Val' use the same "font" as the 'Kate' and 'Zeke'?
Thanks for all you help
Andrew
 
Re: Decal Printing
 
Posted By: Grant Goodale <mailto:grant.goodale@sympatico.ca?subject=Re: Decal Printing>
Date: Wednesday, 18 July 2001, at 1:09 p.m.
 
In Response To: Mr. Goodale (Andrew Monroe)
 
Andrew -
I only have a cheapy IBM Lexmark printer - probably their bottom of the line. A co-worker had a very high quality cover laser printer so I gave him some decal paper and e-mailed the document to him. Once he printed them, I covered each of the printed areas with Microscale Liquid Decal Film. I had him print another page earlier and I sprayed it with the decal film in the spray can but that caused the toner to run.
The decal paper I was using is the Cutting Edge stuff but it is about $10 Canadian (approx $7 US) per sheet.
If you do not have a good quality graphics printer, you can always print it out on plain paper and then take that paper, the disk containing the document and one or two sheets of decal paper to an office services place (like Kinko's) and have them print it for you at some small cost.
Later this evening, I will post the font that I used for the Zero codes. Note that some aircraft had serif fonts and some had sans serif fonts. One even had a serif font on one side of the fin and sans serif on the other. I think that it was the Hirano Zero.
I do not have the Val kit so I don't know about the font used. I would suggest that you set up a test page with fonts that you think are close and print it on plain paper. That way you can compare it with the kit decals and cheaply play around until you get a close match.
Until later
- Grant
 
Re: Decal Printing
 
Posted By: Grant Goodale <mailto:grant.goodale@sympatico.ca?subject=Re: Decal Printing>
Date: Wednesday, 18 July 2001, at 3:58 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Decal Printing (Andrew Monroe)
 
Andrew -
Serif fonts have little "feet" at the bottom of the characters. You are using a serif font when you post a response. A sans serif font does not have these little "feet". When you type in the response, you are using a serif font like Courier and when you display the response, the system is using a sans serf font like Arial.
As for the Zero codes, I used the Arial 16 point bold for the sans serif fontt. I would hazard a guess that the serif font would be Times New Roman 16 point bold.
HTH
- Grant
long range fuel tanks
 
Posted By: Michael Hwang <mailto:licensedtokill@angelfire.com?subject=long range fuel tanks>
Date: Tuesday, 26 June 2001, at 9:52 p.m.
 
Does anyone know what color the external fuel tanks were painted on the Nakajima J1N2 Gekko (Irving) night fighter? The instruction manual says "orange yellow" but I think that's kind of strange.
 
Re: long range fuel tanks
 
Posted By: Hiroyuki Takeuchi
Date: Wednesday, 27 June 2001, at 12:02 a.m.
 
In Response To: long range fuel tanks (Michael Hwang)
 
A GI reported after the war that the tanks he had seen on Ki61s left on airfields in Japan had orange yellow tanks. That account has apparently grown into some kind of a myth, sometimes misleading one to think that ALL tanks were painted yellow.
The speficied color for the tanks was Yellow-Green number something, which ia apparently a light greenish gray (something like RLM gray), or they were left in neutral gray primer. I won't deny the possibility of yellow tanks, but at least that was not standard.
 
Re: long range fuel tanks
 
Posted By: Dennis Klepper <mailto:Dennis.Klepper@FAA.GOV?subject=Re: long range fuel tanks>
Date: Wednesday, 27 June 2001, at 5:59 a.m.
 
In Response To:  (Hiroyuki Takeuchi)
 
Hiroyuki, Check out the book "Meatballs & Dead Birds" and you will find a photgraph of a "Tony" from the 244th Sentai with yellow drop tanks. I don't think the practice was widespread. The 244th was one of the most colorfull outfits in the IJA.
 
"Louis the Louse"
 
Posted By: Bill Bourke <mailto:billbourke@xtra.co.nz?subject='Louis the Louse'>
Date: Monday, 30 April 2001, at 7:49 a.m.
 
Does anybody know the indentity of the aircraft the Marines on Guaudalcanal nicknamed "Louis the Louse". It was a single engined plane - presumably a float plane - possibly out of the Shortland Is or Rekata Bay. I also read somewhere that eventually "The Louse" got bowled by a P38 night fighter, especially brought in for the task.
 
Re: "Louis the Louse"
 
Posted By: Grant Goodale <mailto:grant.goodale@sympatico.ca?subject=Re: 'Louis the Louse'>
Date: Monday, 30 April 2001, at 3:36 p.m.
 
In Response To: "Louis the Louse" (Bill Bourke)
 
Bill -
I thought that it was an F1M Pete. I believe I read that somewhere but I could be very wrong.
 
- Grant
 
Re: "Louis the Louse"
 
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: 'Louis the Louse'>
Date: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 5:12 a.m.
 
In Response To: "Louis the Louse" (Bill Bourke)
 
Hi Bill
Three "characters" which harrassed the Americans on the 'Canal were "Louie the Louse," "Washing Machine Charlie," and "Pistol Pete."
According to my friend Doug CANNING, Y-Mission veteran, "Louie the Louse's" (Petes and/or Jakes) nocturnal missions were ended when a special mission was flown to the Shortlands by P-38's of the 347th FG and a Marine F4U in March 1943. The mission resulted in the destruction of many floatplanes attached to No.938 kaigun kokutai.
 
There were many "Machine Machine Charlies!" Lou KITTEL (70th FS) shot down a couple of them (Bettys) and Henry MEIGS (6th NFS) finished off the last of them in August and September 1943.
 
"Pistol Pete" was a large caliber Howitzer which would periodically lob shells into the Marine lines at night. It was eventually put out of action by combined air attacks and the frontal assaults which secured Guadalcanal.
 
IHTH
Jim Lansdale
 
Re: "Louis the Louse"
 
Posted By: Grant Goodale <mailto:grant.goodale@sympatico.ca?subject=Re: 'Louis the Louse'>
Date: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 10:56 a.m.
 
In Response To: "Louis the Louse" (Bill Bourke)
 
Bill -
I have just finished reading the Osprey Rikko Units book. In it, they mention that a single G4M would fly harassing night raids. The engines were not synchronized and many Marines gave it the name "Washing Machine Charley"
Perhaps this could be the same aircraft but given a nickname by differnt units?
 
FWIW
- Grant
 
Re: "Louis the Louse"
 
Posted By: Bill Bourke <mailto:billbourke@xtra.co.nz?subject=Re: 'Louis the Louse'>
Date: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 3:11 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: "Louis the Louse" (Grant Goodale)
 
Yes you are right Grant. According to several books on Guadalcanal, there were two nocturnal interlopers - one as you describe and "Louie the Louse" (spelt right this time !). "Louie" was a single engined aircraft, most probably a float plane out of the Shortlands or in the earlier days, possibly Rekata Bay.
 
Re: "Louie the Unsynchronised Louse"
 
Posted By: Ryan Boerema <mailto:ryann1k2j@aol.com?subject=Re: 'Louie the Unsynchronised Louse'>
Date: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 2:44 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: "Louis the Louse" (Bill Bourke)
 
How exactly does one unsynchronise an engine. And, knowing its annoying effect on the listener, was it done intentionally?
 
Re: "Louie the Unsynchronised Louse"
 
Posted By: Bill Bourke <mailto:billbourke@xtra.co.nz?subject=Re: 'Louie the Unsynchronised Louse'>
Date: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 4:22 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: "Louie the Unsynchronised Louse" (Ryan Boerema)
 
Ok Ryan, it goes something like this. When you are flying a multi engine aircraft ie two engines or more - each individual engine will perform slightly differently - maybe 50 or so revs above or below its neighbour. If they are not "synchonised", you will get an "out of balance noise" -a bit like an old fashioned washing machine, rather than a steady drone. So the trick is, to adjust the throttles, so that the engines are all turning in harmony and you get one continuous sound. Going by the rev counter can be misleading, as you may have to adjust one engine a tad higher or lower than the other to get that constant sound. The same applies to boats that have twin screws. Once I was on a twin engined boat with a violin player, who said the engines were out of pitch (when I thought I had them pretty good). He was right and we got them both sychonised to perfect pitch. (E flat major if I recall).
 
The relevance of all of this is, that the Japanese used to send a twin engined aircraft at night over the 1st Marines, recently arrived at Gaudalcanal. The pilot would deliberately de-sychronise the engines, so you had this awful noise going on overhead, (plus the odd bomb and flares etc)that kept everyone awake and jitterey when they should have been getting some shut eye - to cope with what the next day may bring - like another attack.
 
The Marines dubbed this aircraft 'Washing Machine Charlie" and a single engined aircraft called "Louie the Louse". Louie, being single engined, couldn't pull the de-sychonised bit, so contented himself by dropping the odd small bomb, flares etc. Eventually he met a very sticky end under the guns of a P38 Nightfighter, brought in especially to deal with him. I have an eye witness account to this event somewhere which I will post when I find it.
SHOHO aircraft at Coral Sea
 
Posted By: Chris <mailto:chrish040642@yahoo.com?subject=SHOHO aircraft at Coral Sea>
Date: Monday, 16 July 2001, at 1:48 p.m.
 
Hey all;
I am not really sure if this is an aircraft or ship question, so I apologize in advance if I posted in the wrong spot.
I was wondering if anyone has the types and number of aircraft carried by SHOHO at Coral Sea? If my memory is correct, she carried a few A6M2s, some A5M4s and B5Ns. Any details on the numbers and types would be greatly appreciated!
 
Thank you,
Chris
 
Re: SHOHO aircraft at Coral Sea
 
Posted By: Allan <mailto:Wildcat42@AOL.com?subject=Re: SHOHO aircraft at Coral Sea>
Date: Monday, 16 July 2001, at 3:35 p.m.
 
In Response To: SHOHO aircraft at Coral Sea (Chris)
 
Hello Chris,
The Shoho Group is as follows:
Carrier Fighter Unit - Lt. Notomi Kenjiro
9 Type "0" Carrier Fighters
4 Type "96" Carrier Fighters
6 Type "97" Carrie Attack" (Lt. Nakamoto Michitaro
Note: On May 2nd, PO2c Tamura Shunichi ditched fatally. He was flying a A6M2
 
Al
VT Fuses etc
 
Posted By: Jukka Juutinen
Date: Wednesday, 30 May 2001, at 11:37 p.m.
 
Just recently I got my hands on a book called "The Fighting Lady" by Clark Reynolds. I have read about 1/3 of it and I┤ve found it excellent and most absorbing reading. There are a few themes so far: first, it seems that every time they attack Japanese airfields the aircraft are parked in nice rows without any attempt to camouflage or splinter sheltering. This is my impression from many other books as well. Why didn┤t the Japanese do away with this weakness? Second, in US pilots opinion Jap. pilots usually attempted beautiful textbook manoeuvres instead of harsh not-by-the-book stuff. Why? Third, the book describes a night attack on the Task Force where the Jap. fail quite badly. The book describes how the attacks were repulsed by AAA fire from screening BBs, cruisers and destroyers. For hours the attackers stubbornly use the same tactics (approach the flattops, shot down or repulsed by AAA). Why didn┤t the Japanese commander order his forces to eliminate these screeners first?
 
Re: A few thoughts...
 
Posted By: Martin <mailto:mgrant@hei.com?subject=Re: A few thoughts...>
Date: Thursday, 31 May 2001, at 6:47 a.m.
 
In Response To: A few thoughts... (Jukka Juutinen)
 
HI Jukka! One reason many Japanese Pilots did "beautiful by the book manuevers" may be explained by Saburo Sakai. He said in his book that most pilots, not matter what will never deviate from what they learned in flight school. Those that do and live to gain from thier experience soemtimes go on to be leading aces, whereas most don't go on to be "leading aces" as we know. I don't know about when the comment you mentioned was made in the stream of time during the war, but the later one gets in the war, the greater the percentage of Japanese Pilots were greenies fresh out of flight school, and many of them should NOT have been out of flight school as they were still at the student level. This may have to do with why that comment was made!
 
Cheers
=Martin
 
Posted By: Hiroyuki Takeuchi
Date: Thursday, 31 May 2001, at 1:57 a.m.
 
In Response To: A few thoughts... (Jukka Juutinen)
 
Why were Japanese planes often parked in neat rows upon attack?
Because the attacks were made when the planes were parked in neat rows! I'm not joking. In New Guniea, Solomons, the Philippines, etc., there were always watchers who reported Japanese airfield activities so Allied attacks were often made as the Japanese were preparing for a mission. The Japanese usually had no radar so these raids were almost always surprise attacks.
 
When the planes were parked, they were usually parked in shelters and camouflaged. Men often had to push these planes for half a mile to and from airstrips.
As for maneuvers, that's because of the short training period in the latter half of the war. Sakai-san has described this issue. He said that the pilots first learn clean maneuvers, but once you have learned it, you dislearn the correct maneuvers and always have your plane slipping around except when you shoot. The "green" pilots had to be sent to battle before learning the combat-dirty maneuvers.
 
As for AA fire, we never knew about the VT fuse until after the war. Without that knowledge, for AA fire to be THAT effective would have been difficult to believe. Picket destroyers were picked out to be priority targets later on, though.
 
mailto:hawk81@pacbell.net?subject=Re: A few thoughts...>
Date: Thursday, 31 May 2001, at 5:54 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: A few thoughts... (Hiroyuki Takeuchi)
 
Do you mean "Proximity Fuse"? A VT (Variable Timing) fuse would be required for basic AAA fire where the predetermined delay time (corresponding to altitude) is set prior to 
loading. I believe it wasn't until much later (post-war) that fire control systems were able to automatically set the timing. As you intimated, radar pickets were hit very heavily in later Kamikaze attacks.
 
As for the neat rows of aircraft, they were often carcasses of wrecked/damaged-beyond-repair planes set out as decoys.
If you watch most of the gun camera film from later in the war, the Japanese planes rarely took any evasive action at all. Like you said, most of the pilots were right out of training. I'd imagine the poor kids really didn't have a clue what to do and simply froze.
 
mailto:wblad@msn.com?subject=Re: A few thoughts...>
Date: Thursday, 31 May 2001, at 11:05 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: A few thoughts... (Bill Leyh)
 
The "Proximity Fuze", properly known as the "VT Fuze" was developed by the USN pre-war. The first successful test firing was in June 1941. It was a small radar carried by a shell which exploded the shell when it came within lethal range. The fire control system had nothing to do with setting the fuze. It only had to be accurate enough to place the shell within lethal range.
 
Posted By: Tony Williams <mailto:autogun@globalnet.co.uk?subject=VT Fuzes>
Date: Friday, 1 June 2001, at 12:43 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: A few thoughts... (William Blado)
 
Ahem....the concept of the proximity fuze, and even more important the design of the cavity magnetron which made such a small radar set possible, were British inventions. However, British R&D capabilities were under such huge pressure early in the war that the info was passed to the USA, who asked the USN to turn the concept into a production item. This was done, most successfully.
 
Incidentally, the term "VT" was part of the USN code for the project and had no meaning. However, the British put about the disinformation that it stood for "Variable Time" to make it seem like a conventional time fuze. They were MOST anxious that the Germans shouldn't get hold of the idea and use it against Allied bombers....
 
Tony Williams
Author: Rapid Fire - The Development of Automatic Cannon, Heavy Machine Guns and their Ammunition for Armies, Navies and Air Forces.
Details on my military gun and ammunition website:
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/
 
Re: VT Fuzes
 
Posted By: Deniz Karašay >
Date: Friday, 1 June 2001, at 6:22 p.m.
 
In Response To: VT Fuzes (Tony Williams)
 
I can hardly beleive (???) Cavity Magnetron (Multi-cavity Magnetron to be accurate) device could fit in an AAA shell. Besides it was beyond production capacity to produce in literally millions to arm AAA shells. Or did you mean the fire control radar?
 
What a shell needed as proximity fuse was an transmitter and receiver not an centimetric radar inside. Besides AAA, land artillery also used proximity fuse for the shell to explode on top of enemy before hitting the ground for maximun damage.
 
Re: VT Fuzes
 
Posted By: Tony Williams <mailto:autogun@globalnet.co.uk?subject=Re: VT Fuzes>
Date: Friday, 1 June 2001, at 11:14 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: VT Fuzes (Deniz Karašay)
 
Your are right, Deniz, I was confusing two different developments. However, I have since done some research to refresh my memory!
I have four different texts in front of me which include the development of the proximity fuze, and they tell a consistent story.
It was probably obvious from the first use of AA artillery that it would be ideal to have some way of making a shell explode only when it was close enough to the target, but no practical way of achieving this was available for a long time. The most promising line of development at first appeared to be the photoelectric cell, which would be triggered by the shadow of the target aircraft. The British built such a fuze and tested it in an AA rocket in 1940, but it was too big and fragile to fit in an artillery shell.
 
The next idea came from the use of radar gun directors. It was to use the reflected energy from the gunlaying set to trigger a receiver in the fuze; a kind of semi-active fuze. Research on this showed it wouldn't work.
 
What would be ideal was evidently a complete radar set in a fuze, but at that time the components of even the smallest radar set were fragile and needed a large suitcase to carry them in. There is no doubt that research along these lines was going on simultaneously in the USA and the UK, but there was a huge gulf between thinking it would be a nice idea, and figuring out how to do it. According to the British History of the Second World War (Design and Development of Weapons) the first proposals to develop radio proximity fuzes working on a Doppler reflection from planes arose during discussions with the Projectile Development Establishment, British War Office, in April 1940, and the work was taken up by the Air Defence Experimental Establishment.
 
Hogg's "British and American Artillery of WW2" tells the rest of the story. The British research led to the conclusion that the idea was workable provided that the necessary components could be made (tiny valves, minute condensers and resistors, and above all a powerful but small battery which could sit in an ammunition store for years and yet develop full power a second or two after firing). In 1940 it was impossible for British industry to produce such items because of the demand for radar and radio sets, so when the Tizard Mission went to America in August 1940 to enlist scientific aid, one of the projects they took with them was the proximity fuze, "the theoretical work on which was virtually complete".
The USN was interested in the idea and took over the responsibility for development. Section "V" of the Bureau of Ordnance was in charge of the programme and they allocated it the code-letter "T", which led to it being called the VT fuze. The rest is history.
 
I do not for one moment underestimate the scale of the task of turning the theoretical concept into a practical fuze, and great credit is due to those Americans involved. However, credit is also due to the British scientists who showed how it could be done.
 
Tony Williams
Author: Rapid Fire - The Development of Automatic Cannon, Heavy Machine Guns and their Ammunition for Armies, Navies and Air Forces.
Details on my military gun and ammunition website:
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/
 
Aircraft
 
Re: VT Fuzes
Posted By: Deniz Karacay <mailto:dkaracay@umr.edu?subject=Re: VT Fuzes>
Date: Saturday, 2 June 2001, at 5:22 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: VT Fuzes (Tony Williams)
 
Very interesting. I never give a serious thought on the subject before. I presume this proximity fuses could fit in large calibre guns only. Could 40mm Bofors shell take it?
 
Re: VT Fuzes
 
Posted By: Bill Leyh <mailto:hawk81@pacbell.net?subject=Re: VT Fuzes>
Date: Friday, 1 June 2001, at 1:51 a.m.
 
In Response To: VT Fuzes (Tony Williams)
 
Tony,
That's very interesting! And it's still in use today. Two of the main rounds used today in naval guns such as the Mk75 76mm gun are HE-VT and HE-PD.
 
Bill
 
Re: VT Fuzes
 
Posted By: William Blado <mailto:wblad@msn.com?subject=Re: VT Fuzes>
Date: Friday, 1 June 2001, at 1:26 a.m.
 
In Response To:  (Tony Williams)
 
The British did the pioneer work on radar and developed the magnetron that made it practical. But the concept of the proximity fuze is American and goes back as far as 1925 when Admiral Blandy, then a junior officer, proposed it to BuOrd. In 1938 physicist Robert Millikan proposed the idea to the US Navy. The British began work on alternative radio and photoelectric proximity fuzes for their 3-inch rocket in 1939 but gave up because they believed that a system strong enough to withstand the shock of firing could not be developed before the war ended. In August 1940 BuOrd asked the NDRC to develope a proximity fuze. They considered, but discarded, a photoelectric fuze, a ground-controlled fuze, and an acoustic fuze. By may 1941 a self-contained, radio proximity fuze had been designed. In June 1941 it was successfully tested and in August 1941 production contracts were awarded. Developement continued throughout the war and improved models were fielded. The VT fuze first saw action on 4 January 1943 when the cruiser Helena successfully engaged Japanese dive bombers. VT fuzed shells were provided to the British through Lend-Lease. Originally developed for 5-inch guns, by the end of the war there were VT variants for 6-inch and 3-inch guns and the navy 5-inch spin-stabilized rocket and the army T-38 rocket. The US Army had its own VT fuzes.
weathering hinomarus
 
Posted By: Andrew Monroe <mailto:amonroe@spp.org?subject=weathering hinomarus>
Date: Wednesday, 25 July 2001, at 7:02 a.m.
As a hinomaru was exposed to wind, waves and sun, would it become increasingly "white" or would it more "orange" as it aged?
Thanks
Andrew
 
Re: weathering hinomarus
 
Posted By: Antonio Veiga <mailto:aveiga@airtel.net?subject=Re: weathering hinomarus>
Date: Thursday, 26 July 2001, at 5:38 p.m.
 
In Response To: weathering hinomarus (Andrew Monroe)
 
Hi Andrew
There is an article by François P. WEILL ,within this very same site, I think is very interesting
http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/weathering_question.htm
 
Best regards
 
Re: weathering hinomarus
 
Posted By: Antonio Veiga <mailto:aveiga@airtel.net?subject=Re: weathering hinomarus>
Date: Wednesday, 25 July 2001, at 1:38 p.m.
 
In Response To: weathering hinomarus (Andrew Monroe)
 
Hi Andrew
Regarding IJAAF this is what I┤ve found:
 
Due weather exposure and continued action operations/conditions, all painting work (hinomaru included) in japanese aircrafts rapidly deteriorated and finally it peeled off. This effect was more acute in overseas deployed aircrafts,like in tropical islands front where environment conditions were more aggressive, and maintenance works were not as constant/dedicated as at home bases. Sometimes the hinomaru paint coating disappeared almost completely. In other cases the the paint coating remained but its color degenerated into several tones ie:pink, orange, and almost yellow. Some other times land crews crudely overpainted the white outline edge giving then a "halo" effect.
 
(Source: http://www.warbirdpix.com)
"Frequently, a field applied camouflage was painted around the hinomaru and the white outline was therefore unnecessary and this produced a halo effect around the hinomaru"
"Over time, the red pigment of the upper-surface hinomaru generally oxidised into what has been termed a blood-red colour. ...Nevertheless, the hinomaru of a few machines clearly faded to an orange or pink shade.Obviously, the lower surface hinomaru were not exposed to sunlight to the same degree.On wartime wrecks still extant in New Guinea, some underside hinomaru have remained bright red. ...Towards the final stages of the war , the white outline was frequently not applied to new aircraft, to prevent compromising the overall camouflage and, on other machines , it was partially over-painted in a less conspicuous colour, for the same reason." (Source: "EMBLEMS OF THE RISING SUN" by Peter Scott)
 
I think for the carrier based IJN aircrafts, it must be added the usual marine environment corrosion effects.
Best regards
 
Re: weathering hinomarus
 
Posted By: Micah Bly <mailto:micahbly@visi.com?subject=Re: weathering hinomarus>
Date: Wednesday, 25 July 2001, at 9:14 a.m.
 
In Response To:  (Andrew Monroe)
 
I not only can't answer your question, but I'd like to complicate it with a related one:
 
Did Japanese ground crews repaint hinomarus (and IFF stripes) more frequently than they did the rest of the airplane? Often you see pictures of airplanes with lots of paint stripping and fading, but relatively fresh looking hinomarus. It kind of looks like they are touching them up?
 
Micah Bly
 
Re: weathering hinomarus
 
Posted By: John Dillon <mailto:john.dillon@wachovia.com?subject=Re: weathering hinomarus>
Date: Wednesday, 25 July 2001, at 12:40 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: weathering hinomarus (Micah Bly)
 
I'll take a crack at both questions. The colors of the faded hinomarus varied due to the different composition of the paints used. You can't say that they faded to any uniform color. There is evidence for faded ones of an orange tint as well as light pink.
 
As for repainting or touching up hinomarus, I can't say whether this was done in the field or not. But remember the hinomarus were almost always painted on at the factory, on clean metal with primer underneath. This wasn't always the case with the camoflage colors, where it wasn't uncommon for the colors to be applied in the field on dirty metal with no primer to aid adhesion. This will often account for fresh looking hinomarus on a plane with badly chipping paint.
 
HTH
John
 
Re: weathering hinomarus
 
Posted By: Merv Brewer <mailto:mervin.brewer@slc.k12.ut.us?subject=Re: weathering hinomarus>
Date: Thursday, 26 July 2001, at 7:47 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: weathering hinomarus (John Dillon)
 
Hi guys, While on this subject I have to ask: Were the Hinomarus painted in a gloss or flat color from the factory? I assume they were painted with Laquer based paint. Thanks, Merv
 
Re: weathering hinomarus
 
Posted By: John Dillon <mailto:john.dillon@wachovia.com?subject=Re: weathering hinomarus>
Date: Thursday, 26 July 2001, at 8:22 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: weathering hinomarus (Merv Brewer)
 
Merv,
I've got a couple photos of planes under assembly at the factory with the hinomarus already painted and they look to be semi-gloss to gloss. I'm sure this could vary from paint batch to paint batch though. I build car models quite a bit and can testify that there are plenty of variables (e.g. brand of paint, humidity, paint to thinner ratio, etc.) that can effect the finish.
 
John
 
Re: weathering hinomarus
 
Posted By: Merv Brewer <mailto:mervin.brewer@slc.k12.ut.us?subject=Re: weathering hinomarus>
Date: Thursday, 26 July 2001, at 10:13 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: weathering hinomarus (John Dillon)
 
O.K. with that in mind, then I would assume that the Hinomarus were painted with an Enamal type paint or a Laquer coverd with a clear gloss varnish.I lean toward the latter. These would weather differently and deteriorate slower than a Laquer which comes out in a rough flat finish. That would explain why so many of the IJN aircraft with green top sides show the results of weathering to a lesser extent on the Hinomarus than the rest of the aircraft. Food for thought... Merv
 
Re: weathering hinomarus
 
Posted By: Travis Lee <mailto:tmlee2@yahoo.com?subject=Re: weathering hinomarus>
Date: Thursday, 26 July 2001, at 4:35 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: weathering hinomarus (Merv Brewer)
 
I am in the U.S. Navy and have the unique opportunity of being stationed in Japan. One of my passions is modeling WWII Japanese aircraft. After studying the topic, I learned from my Japanese military friends that Japanese aircraft maintainers took extensive care of the hinomarus, or "Rising Sun", to put it crudely. As always, the fading depended on the particular paint batch. Remember, painting technology was not what it is today.
Who bombed the USS Franklin?
 
Posted By: Andrew Johnson <mailto:ajo@ceh.ac.uk?subject=Who bombed the USS Franklin?>
Date: Friday, 29 June 2001, at 2:06 a.m.
 
By the way thanks guys for your info on the Zero drop tanks, I had had a sneaking suspicion they would hold onto them due to shortages etc.
Reading an account of the attack on the USS Franklin, it appeared that a single aircraft sneaked through and placed two bombs on the flight deck - with devastating consequences.
Does anyone know what the plane was, who flew it, from where,from what air group?
 
Thanks
Andrew
 
Re: Who bombed the USS Franklin?
 
Posted By: flip <mailto:waianae1958@juno.com?subject=Re: Who bombed the USS Franklin?>
Date: Friday, 29 June 2001, at 6:36 p.m.
 
In Response To: Who bombed the USS Franklin? (Andrew Johnson)
 
Judy was the plane, pilot unknown, unit unknown.
 
Re: Who bombed the USS Franklin?
 
Posted By: richard dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Re: Who bombed the USS Franklin?>
Date: Saturday, 30 June 2001, at 12:12 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Who bombed the USS Franklin? (flip)
 
Flip
Sounds like you are talking about the 19 March attack. 24 Suisei sortied and ten returned. Only other attack aircraft were Ginga. Since a single engine dive bomber attacked Franklin it looks like Judy is the right answer. These seem to have been from a composite unit opeating from Kokubu air base and apparently referred to as Kokubu Unit and operating under the 5th Air Fleet.
 
Rick
 
Re: Who bombed the USS Franklin?
 
Posted By: richard dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Re: Who bombed the USS Franklin?>
Date: Friday, 29 June 2001, at 6:31 p.m.
 
In Response To: Who bombed the USS Franklin? (Andrew Johnson)
 
Andrew
Which attack? Oct 15,44 or Oct 30,44 or March 19,45?
Might be able to help if you specify the ocassion.
 
Rick
 
Re: Who bombed the USS Franklin?
 
Posted By: Andrew Johnson <mailto:andrew.johnson28@ntlworld.com?subject=Re: Who bombed the USS Franklin?>
Date: Saturday, 30 June 2001, at 1:07 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Who bombed the USS Franklin? (richard dunn)
 
Thanks Rich
I meant the attack which led to the great catastrophe on the carrier, which I guess is what you were referring to. I suppose they were inline engined Susei? Do we know if the pilot escaped? Was the unit rewarded? Did the Japanese realise what had happened to the carrier?
 
Thanks
Andrew
 
Re: Who bombed the USS Franklin?
 
Posted By: UCHIDA, Katsuhiro <mailto:2000GT-B@mui.biglobe.ne.jp?subject=Re: Who bombed the USS Franklin?>
Date: Saturday, 30 June 2001, at 2:04 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Who bombed the USS Franklin? (Andrew Johnson)
 
Hello Andrew,
Regarding USS FRANKLIN on the day, as Rick told us, the plane might have been D4Y Suisei (Inline or radial) of 5th Air Fleet (Kokutai is unknown).
I believe the aviators were shot by her AA fires and were KIA. If they survived, I am sure he would write a book about it after the war like many IJA/IJN aviators.
According to an officer of FRANKLIN, two bombs hit the flight deck at one time and they did not noticed that one plane was coming closer to them.
Then, the plane might had been a P1Y Ginga. P1Y could carry one 800kg bomb, one 500kg bomb, two 250kg bombs or one 800kg torpedo. D4Y3 Suisei (radial) could carry three 250kg bombs, but I do not think D4Y3 actually carried three 250kg bombs in action. D4Y4 Model 43 could carry one 800kg bomb, but D4Y4's first flight was in Feb. 1945.
5th Air Fleet estimated that they gave serious damages to 4 or 5 carriers around the days, so 5th Air Fleet (5AF) was given a certificate of commendation by Adm. Toyoda (CinC of Combined Fleet [GF]).
IJA Gen. (Ret.) UGAKI, Kazushige read about it on the newspaper and wrote in his diary, "Matome (=VAdm. UGAKI, Matome) did well!" Gen. Ugaki (ex-Prime Minister of Japan) was a cousin of VAdm. Ugaki (CinC of 5AF).
This battle is called "Kyushu-oki Koku-sen" in Japan.
Although this is not enough information for you, but I hope this will help you.
 
Best regards,
Katsuhiro
 
Re: Who bombed the USS Franklin?
 
Posted By: richard dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Re: Who bombed the USS Franklin?>
Date: Saturday, 30 June 2001, at 1:51 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Who bombed the USS Franklin? (Andrew Johnson)
 
Andrew
The real bad attack was the March 19th 1945 attack off Kyushu. Little damage occurred on Oct 15th,44 but October 30th was a kakmikaze attack and and caused some serious damage and casualties (nothing like the 1945 attack).
Don't know the pilot. I'm not even sure of the unit except as described in the earlier post. The Gingas in the attack were from K406 and K501. Five including Lt.Isao Kananashi failed to return. Suisei were possibly from K105 and K251 but I have been unable to confirm this. Don't know their equipment at that time. Later Suisei model 11's and 12's operated from Kokubu. Both these types have Atsuta engines.
 
The Japanese claimed one carrier and one cruiser sunk and one carrier on fire. They soon heard of Admiral Nimitz report that only one American warship had been heavily damaged and others lightly damaged. Later they heard Admiral King's report that two hits had been scored on Franklin and 772 killed or wounded. Don't think they knew whether to credit the Suisei unit or the Gingas.
 
I'm suspect someone out there has more details on this than I do. This is not really my area.
 
Rick
 
Last kamikaze flight
 
Posted By: Dennis <mailto:spit_fire@mail.ru?subject=Last kamikaze flight>
Date: Tuesday, 6 November 2001, at 1:41 a.m.
 
Is somebody tell me on what type of plane - G4M or D4Y made his kamikaze flight Adm. Ugaki?
 
Re: Last kamikaze flight
 
Posted By: Steve Horn <mailto:shorn3@bellsouth.net?subject=Re: Last kamikaze flight>
Date: Wednesday, 7 November 2001, at 8:53 a.m.
 
In Response To: Last kamikaze flight (Dennis)
 
There is a photo ("Last known photo of Ugaki as his plane leaves from Oita [Courtesy of Masataka Chihaya]") in the book "Fading Victory: The Diary of Admiral Matome Ugaki 1941-1945", p. 379. The airplane is a "Judy" and the Admiral has stripped the rank from his uniform before his last flight. He appears looking away in the rear seat and it looks as if somebody else is sitting on his lap. HTH,
Steve Horn
 
Re: Last kamikaze flight
 
Posted By: Mike Slater <mailto:slater55@msn.com?subject=Re: Last kamikaze flight>
Date: Tuesday, 6 November 2001, at 12:56 p.m.
 
In Response To: Last kamikaze flight (Dennis)
 
D4Y. The Admiral rode in the rear gunner/ radio opertor's seat.
 
Re: Last kamikaze flight
 
Posted By: Masahiro Washio <mailto:m-washio@zero-fighter.com?subject=Re: Last kamikaze flight>
Date: Tuesday, 6 November 2001, at 2:54 a.m.
 
In Response To: Last kamikaze flight (Dennis)
 
Maybe D4Y JUDY.
 
Re: Yes, D4Y4 Model 43 of 701 Ku
 
Posted By: Mike Namba <mailto:miknamba@pol.net?subject=Re: Yes, D4Y4 Model 43 of 701 Ku>
Date: Saturday, 10 November 2001, at 7:55 p.m.
 
In Response To: Yes, D4Y4 Model 43 of 701 Ku *PIC* (UCHIDA, Katsuhiro)
 
Thanks Katsuhiro-san. Does this mean that Admiral Ugaki's plane probably had the bomb bay doors removed and the large bomb was exposed under the fusilage?
 
Posted By: UCHIDA, Katsuhiro <mailto:2000GT-B@mui.biglobe.ne.jp?subject=These are the photos. *PIC*>
Date: Tuesday, 6 November 2001, at 7:01 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Yes, D4Y4 Model 43 of 701 Ku (Dennis)
 
Hi Denis.
D4Y4 was "suitable" for such Special Attack missions, but it was actually a dual-seat conventional plane and it was still called "carrier bomber" (Kanbaku).
Crew of Ugaki's plane: Pilot: Lt. Nakatsuru Radio Man: WO Endo
You can click the URL below and you can see the rear seat of his plane. Yes, two men (Uagki and Endo) sat together on the rear seat.
 
HTH,
Katsuhiro
 
Source: "Senso-roku" by UGAKI, Matome (Hara Shobo)
Ugaki's plane on Aug. 15, 1945
 
Adm Ugaki's Last Mission
 
Posted By: Andrew Obluski <mailto:aoba41@yahoo.com?subject=Adm Ugaki's Last Mission>
Date: Tuesday, 6 November 2001, at 7:46 a.m.
 
In Response To: These are the photos. *PIC* (UCHIDA, Katsuhiro)
 
Hello 
All Japanese servicemen who died in war received promotion. For specially heroic actions selected men were granted posthumous double promotion. These included Tokko pilots, Kaiten pilots and some great aviators like Takehiko Chihaya, Takashige Ekusa and Shigeharu Murata.
But Adm Matome Ugaki received nothing as he acted against the will of the Emperor.
 
Greetings
Andrew
 
Re: Yes, indeed.
 
Posted By: Mike Namba <mailto:miknamba@pol.net?subject=Re: Yes, indeed.>
Date: Tuesday, 6 November 2001, at 9:37 p.m.
 
In Response To: Yes, indeed. *No Text* (UCHIDA, Katsuhiro)
 
Question: Did that version of the D4Y4 have its bomb bay doors removed and a large 500 kg bomb mounted under the fusilage? I have seen drawings of D4Y4 like this but the Fujimi model I have does not match the drawings?
 
D4Y4 of 252 Ku (March 1945) *PIC*
 
Posted By: UCHIDA, Katsuhiro <mailto:2000GT-B@mui.biglobe.ne.jp?subject=D4Y4 of 252 Ku (March 1945) *PIC*>
Date: Wednesday, 7 November 2001, at 6:31 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Yes, indeed. (Mike Namba)
 
Hello Mr. Namba,
I have seen a photo of D4Y4 captured after the war and the D4Y4 has bomb bay doors. I think the US placed the bomb bay doors on the plane.
I cannot say that Fujimi D4Y4 (1/72nd) is accurate.
 
Best regards,
Katsuhiro
Mystery of Copahee and Saipan.
 
Posted By: Masahiro Washio <mailto:m-washio@zero-fighter.com?subject=Mystery of Copahee and Saipan.>
Date: Wednesday, 24 October 2001, at 10:10 a.m.
 
We are discussing Mystery of Copahee and Saipan at Japanese BBS. Many Japanese scholars believe Copahee carried only 14 zeros. We collected many photos taken at Copahee and Saipan.
 
We can see 14 zeros on Copahee. And ,We can see over 20 zeros at Saipan. (maybe 21) We can see 5 Zeros and 1 Kate in the hangar at Saipan. There are 16 zeros outside the hangar.
 
Then,We could not find famous 61-120 on Copahee. So.I think,Copahee piled very good Zeros into the ship.
But, there is no proof. Do anyone know how many Zeros in fact were carried by Copahee?
 
Re: Copahee Deck Spot of Zeros
 
Posted By: Masahiro Washio <mailto:m-washio@zero-fighter.com?subject=Re: Copahee Deck Spot of Zeros>
Date: Thursday, 25 October 2001, at 3:38 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Copahee Deck Spot of Zeros *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)
 
Mr.Lansdale.
Thank you for your surmise. But,We think the second rows left Zero was not 61-120. And I think the last rows Zero was not 61-108. Because, they broke. Of course,they could be able to be repaired. But,there was Zeros of the better condition.
 
Re: Copahee Deck Spot of Zeros *PIC*
 
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: Copahee Deck Spot of Zeros *PIC*>
Date: Thursday, 25 October 2001, at 4:57 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Copahee Deck Spot of Zeros (Masahiro Washio)
 
Washio-san
You wrote, "But,We think the second rows left Zero was not 61-120. And I think the last rows Zero was not 61-108. Because, they broke."
I have several photos of [61-120] Nakajima s/n 5357 (see example below). All show, to the contrary, that it was one of the best examples captured. Many years later it became a movie prop and still exists today at the Chino Air Museum. Do you have evidence of [63-120] having being damaged before it was placed on the COPAHEE or en-route?
 
I, too, cannot make out the number clearly on [61-108] and I have alternated between that number and [61-103]. I still "think" it is [61-108], but I am not at all certain!
 
HTH
Jim Lansdale
 
Re: Copahee Deck Spot of Zeros
 
Posted By: Masahiro Washio <mailto:m-washio@zero-fighter.com?subject=Re: Copahee Deck Spot of Zeros>
Date: Thursday, 25 October 2001, at 6:27 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Copahee Deck Spot of Zeros *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)
 
Lansdale-sama!
Thank you very much for very clear photo of 61-120! Of course I know 61-120 is exists. I saw flying 61-120 at Ryugasaki-Airport,Japan in 1995.
And,I went to The Air Museum Planes of Fame to meet her.
 
The second rows left Zero,The left main wing breaks. And maybe rear landing gear breaks,too. 61-120 was perfect,in your photo. They were different zeros obviously.
 
Next ,We thought. The last rows right Zero was perfect. But, there was white edge at Hinomaru of the zero. 61-120 had black edge Hinomaru. They were different ,too.
 
There were no 61-120 on the deck of Copahee. Therefore, we thought that there was 61-120 in bottom of the deck.
 
Re: Copahee Deck Spot of Zeros
 
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: Copahee Deck Spot of Zeros>
Date: Thursday, 25 October 2001, at 8:30 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Copahee Deck Spot of Zeros *PIC* (Masahiro Washio)
 
Thank you Washio-san.
Also note that the hinomaru have black (dark) outline. I have other photos with the [61-120] code on this plane, but I had not noticed the damaged port wing tip. It must have been damaged when it was put on board or during transport to the dock!!!
 
FWIW
Jim Lansdale
 
Re: Copahee Deck Spot of Zeros *PIC*
 
Posted By: Masahiro Washio <mailto:m-washio@zero-fighter.com?subject=Re: Copahee Deck Spot of Zeros *PIC*>
Date: Thursday, 25 October 2001, at 6:28 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re:Aslito Field Lineup of 16 Zeros & COPAHEE [61-120] *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)
 
43-188 was captured on Guam Island.
Not Saipan Island.
 
Re: Saipan Zero Spots.
 
Posted By: Kenji <mailto:kmiyazak@fujikura.co.jp?subject=Re: Saipan Zero Spots.>
Date: Wednesday, 24 October 2001, at 11:35 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Saipan Zero Spots. *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)
 
Dear Mr. Lansdale,
I am working with Mr. Washio to find the truth of Saipan Zero. We are very surprised and glad that you kindly showed us your version of Zerosüf location in Saipan.
After one of our people made that drawing, we have made some progress. So far, we have found 13 (4 of Mitsubishi made 52, 1 of Nakajima Made 21, 8 of Nakajima made 52) of serial numbers and 18 of tail cords of those Zeros.
 
And then, can we ask you some questions?
1 According to your drawing, 8-25, 61-108/3, 61-126, 8-28, 61-116 are specified in Saipan.
We have guessed location of 8-25, 61-108/3, and 61-126 but not found any clear photos to identify their location in front of the hanger. About 8-28 and 61-116, we could not even guess. Especially 61-116 type 21, we have not found any photos showing its number.
Would you kindly tell us how you identify those Zeros? Are there some photos of those Zeros?
2 Also on the Copahee, 61-120 is specified. Are there also photos of this Zero on the Copahee?
3 On the Copahee, 61-108 is identified. We have only one photo in which tail cord is too ambiguous to define it as 108. Is there any photo showing 108 clearly?
4 In Japan, it is said that only 14 Zeros on the flight deck were brought to the US. We, however, believe more than 14, probably around 20 Zeros were brought.
 
"The Mission" and LBJ...
 
Posted By: Martin <mailto:mgrant@hei.com?subject='The Mission' and LBJ...>
Date: Tuesday, 3 July 2001, at 2:39 a.m.
 
Gents...if the book "The Mission" detailing LBJ's bogus mission in the south pacific against none other than the Tainan Wing is bogus in that he was never there, was someone else there writing what they really witnessed, even a bomber crewman? In other words, was the story true, but someone incerted LBJ instead of "Bob Smith"? Or was the WHOLE thing a work of fiction?
 
Cheers!
=Martin
 
Re: "The Mission" and LBJ...
Posted By: MIchael Jacques <mailto:jacqueshong@one.net.au?subject=Re: 'The Mission' and LBJ...>
Date: Tuesday, 3 July 2001, at 6:03 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: "The Mission" and LBJ... *No Text* (MIchael Jacques)
 
Sorry for the slip-up above. LBJ did go on his mission, the 22nd Bomb Group had to wait around for LBJ and other brass to turn up before they could go, pretty much assuring that the attack would be a stuff-up. The aircraft LBJ was in, "Heckling Hare" from memory, developed generator failure and turned back before reaching the target. When LBJ got out he was interviewed by a New York Times correspondent and admitted that he did not reach the target. A report on the mission was given to the papers by a gunner who I understand had a flair for self-promotion and probably thought he could get in the papers on LBJ's coat-tails and make handy allies. LBJ was later awarded the Silver Star for the mission, probably so that he would report favourably on MacArthur's command when he returned to the States. LBJ's weakness was that he accepted the award for going on a plane ride, and then stayed silent about the real circumstances of the mission. No doubt he thought the medal would be useful politically after the war.
 
Re: "The Mission" and LBJ...
 
Posted By: Martin <mailto:mgrant@hei.com?subject=Re: 'The Mission' and LBJ...>
Date: Friday, 6 July 2001, at 7:24 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: "The Mission" and LBJ... (MIchael Jacques)
 
Thanks for the information everyone! I wonder if this gunner who turned in his report, flair for self promotion or not, was telling the story as it happend, you know, the attack from all the zeros? Or was that all made up?
 
Cheers!
=Martin
 
Re: "The Mission" and LBJ...
 
Posted By: Barrett Tillman <mailto:btillman63@hotmail.com?subject=Re: 'The Mission' and LBJ...>
Date: Tuesday, 3 July 2001, at 4:19 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: "The Mission" and LBJ... (MIchael Jacques)
 
Michael's take on "The Mission" is correct: the Silver Star aspect was entirely political, both during and after the war. According to Pulitzer Prize winning biographer Robt. Caro (who unaccountably relied on "The Mission" as his sole source on the subject) LBJ had the medal repeatedly presented to him while campaigning in '42. 22nd BG vets have said that two enlisted crewmembers sought to capitalize on their brief wartime affiliation with lbj, while the surviving officer (navigator) was told to keep quiet during the '60s if he couldn't support Johnson's version of events.
 
The truth has been known in political circles for quite awhile. I have also been told by folks in "Johnson Country" around the Perdinales that public venues repeating the myth will remain in place as long as Lady Bird survives. (Two venues that come to mind are the Navy Memorial in DC and the excellent National Museum of the Pacific War in Fredericksburg.)
 
Re: "The Mission" and LBJ...
 
Posted By: Jay Carrell <mailto:omd@texas.net?subject=Re: Thursday on CNN>
Date: Tuesday, 3 July 2001, at 3:33 p.m.
 
In Response To: Thursday on CNN (Barrett Tillman)
 
It appears that you are under the misimpression that all Texans are devotees of Lyndon Johnson. LBJ is not exactly revered for his political or wartime contributions here. Texas has pretty much been a conservative state since his administration. His political shenanigans in 1948 in South Texas are legendary. His award of the Silver Star is largely unknown and pretty much shrugged off.
Jay Carrell
 
Re: "The Mission" and LBJ...
 
Posted By: John Lundstrom <mailto:jl@mpm.edu?subject=Re: 'The Mission' and LBJ...>
Date: Tuesday, 3 July 2001, at 9:31 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: "The Mission" and LBJ... (Barrett Tillman)
 
Not to defend MacArthur, but until the fall of 1942 the Silver Star did not have the prestige that it later received. It then was only a US Army award. For WWI vets (the medal was instituted in 1932 and back-awarded) the Silver Star was like the British MID - Mention in Despatches. It originally was a small silver star that was attached to the WWI Victory Medal & starting in 1932 the vets who were qualified (and there were many thousand) could apply to the govt for the Silver Star Medal.
In my opinion Johnson abused his award after 1942 when the Silver Star Medal was adopted by the USN/USMC and rated as the third highest gallantry award under the CMH.
 
Re: "The Mission" and LBJ...
 
Posted By: Barrett Tillman <mailto:btillman63@hotmail.com?subject=Re: 'The Mission' and LBJ...>
Date: Tuesday, 3 July 2001, at 10:29 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: "The Mission" and LBJ... (John Lundstrom)
 
John makes a good point; the entire Navy awards system was revamped in August '42 though it took awhile for things to shake out. An interwar version of the Navy Medal of Honor, the extraordinarily botched "Tiffany Cross" of 1919, was finally scuttled and (presumably) the Navy MoH was from thereon limited to combat actions. Similarly, the Navy Cross was elevated from 3rd to 2nd place above the DSM (I think), which probably is why Swede Vejtasa's splendid defense of Enterprise at Santa Cruz got him a Cross instead of The Big One. As John notes, the Silver Star became a more prestigious award than before, followed by the 
 
Bronze Star which was instituted as a ground combat equivalent to the Air Medal. As for the DFC, it was established in 1926 and the earliest recipients were Byrd/Bennett and Lindbergh, all of whom subsequently received the MoH (contrary to the requirements!) for the same exploratory flights.
 
Re: "The Mission" and LBJ...
 
Posted By: Pete Chalmers <mailto:pchalmers@carolina.rr.com?subject=Re: 'The Mission' and LBJ...>
Date: Wednesday, 4 July 2001, at 8:26 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: "The Mission" and LBJ... (Barrett Tillman)
 
Barrett:
The Bronze Star Medal is really between the DFC and Air Medal in equivalency - most Army folks I know from Vietnam got one more or less automatically if they qualified for the Combat Infantry Badge.
 
The USN/USMC since Vietnam has followed the Army lead in awarding the combat "V" ( or combat distinquishing device, as distinct from " V for Valor" ) with the DFC and AM to distinguish combat from non-combat awards of those decorations - during my time in the barrel ( 1967-69 ) the "V" was awarded with the Navy Acheivement Medal, Navy Commendation Medal, BS, and LOM.
 
The Navy also awarded both the AM and DFC for cumulative missions - in my time, 10 "2-pointers" ( Over NVN /Laos) got you a "Strike/Flight" numeral for your Air Medal and 100 " 2-pointers" usually resulted in the DFC.
 
I would also note the typical language in citations which I have seen: Air Medal : "for meritorious service in aerial flight"
Bronze Star Medal: " for meritorious service "
DFC: "for extraordinary acheivement in aerial flight"
Navy Commendation Medal: "for meritorious acheivement"
 
"Heroism" or "Heroic" sometimes appear in these citations, but IMHO heroism begins with the Silver Star - the more junior awards are simply for doing the job you were hired to do, which is why LBJ's Silver Star is particularly galling.
 
I would note that I saw a short "blip" on ABC news re. the LBJ award last night(?) re. a story on one of their news digest programs - this is very old news - I recall discussions about the ribbon when I watched with some of my USN/USMC colleagues in Danang on AFVN TV when LBJ gave his "I Quit" speech in March, 1968 - I still see those empty Vienna sausage and Falstaff beer cans ( never waste beer, warm or cold ! ) flying at the TV as we all angrily asked if we could quit too ( this was 1LT/LTJG thru MAJ/LCDR in the audience ).
 
I would also note that the Meritorious Service Medal was created in 1969 to eliminate the over-awarding of the Bronze Star.
 
Re: "The Mission" and LBJ...
 
Posted By: Barrett Tillman <mailto:btillman63@hotmail.com?subject=Re: 'The Mission' and LBJ...>
Date: Wednesday, 4 July 2001, at 12:37 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: "The Mission" and LBJ... (Pete Chalmers)
 
Thanks for your update, Pete. I admit that my perspective is largely WW II, hence the emphasis on origins of the SS, BSM, etc. Medals do evolve as criteria and situations change (to say nothing of politics), which is why John's notation on the Silver Star is so pertinent. The Medal of Honor, ferinstance, was originally limited to enlisted men, and the VC went through a period when it was a military and civilian award. the most consistently applied criteria among major powers seem to have been Germany (which, AFAIK, never rewarded life saving--only damage to the enemy.)
 
Lindbergh saw some combat during his '44 tour as a tech rep and said that nearly every Japanese soldier probably would have qualified for an MoH but of course Japan had very few valor awards. They set the bar pretty dang high when essentially you are expected to die!
 
Break-break.
 
ref. "Can we quit too?" I'm reminded of the story from an AVG pilot of USMC origins. He got a lot of press here in Oregon in early '42 and received a telegram from the governor asking what kind of airplane the taxpayers should buy for him. His immediate reaction: "A DC-3 so we can all go home!"
Kamakaze Question
 
Posted By: Edward Hawkins <mailto:edward@edwardhawkins.com?subject=Kamakaze Question>
Date: Wednesday, 14 August 2002, at 6:25 p.m.
 
I was watching a Japanese Movie ... In fact, I've watched it about two dozens times, it's really entertaining "Rengo Kantai 1982" but something was bothering me ... I couldn't quite put my finger on it, until ...
As if Emeril sprinkled me with powdered sugar "BAMM!"
There's a scene with some of our main characters going off to kamakaze themselves against the American fleet. They are in a torpedo plane, making a dive on a carrier. There's two people in the plane ...
That's what bathered me ... I know it may have been poetic license and all ... But really ... Wasn't a kamakaze a SOLO action for a pilot? They didn't sent two pilots in one plane, did they?
This is also the same movie, where at the end, just as the Yamato Blows up, there are zeros flying air-cover ... So, I hadn't taken the kamakaze thing seriously, but it still has me bothered ...
Anyone?
-Edward
 
Re: Kamakaze Question
 
Posted By: Hiroyuki Takeuchi
Date: Wednesday, 21 August 2002, at 7:49 a.m.
 
In Response To: Kamakaze Question (Edward Hawkins)
 
2515 IJN personnel and 1406 IJN planes were lost in Kamikaze attacks.
Does this figure give you an answer to the question?
 
Re: Kamikaze Question
 
Posted By: Rob Graham - The ReiShikiSenGuy
Date: Wednesday, 14 August 2002, at 7:14 p.m.
 
In Response To: Kamakaze Question (Edward Hawkins)
 
Edward:
"Let's kick it up a notch with a little pork fat..."
I was also surprised that a considerable number of Japanese crews chose to go on these missions together.
So it did happen. One thing I have noticed, though... It seems I haven't seen any Raidens in Kamikaze use. Almost everything else, but no Raidens. Am I missing out on pictures somewhere?
--Rob
 
Re: Kamikaze Question
 
Posted By: John Dillon <mailto:john.dillon@wachovia.com?subject=Re: Kamikaze Question>
Date: Thursday, 15 August 2002, at 2:10 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Kamikaze Question (Rob Graham - The ReiShikiSenGuy)
 
Rob,
I hadn't really thought about it but you're right--I can't think of a single example of when Raidens were used on Kamikaze missions. I've got a couple of theories about it that may or may not make sense.
First, the IJNAF attacks were primarily on shipping while the Raiden was designed as a land based interceptor. It may have been that the Japanese felt that the Raiden would be better used intercepting bombers rather than attacking shipping.
Second, I recall that on many of the missions the planes had to travel quite a distance to reach their targets. I don't have my references here at work, but I would question whether the Raiden had sufficient range for these missions unless the targets were fairly close to the mainland.
That's a little food for thought. A very good question and I'd be interested to hear any other takes on it.
Best regards,
John
 
Re: Hoyt volumes of inaccurracy
 
Posted By: Saburo <mailto:saburoplastki@sasktel.net?subject=Re: Hoyt volumes of inaccurracy>
Date: Saturday, 13 July 2002, at 7:25 p.m.
 
In Response To: Hoyt volumes of inaccurracy (richard dunn)
 
Richard,
Thanks for the information on the Hoyt book.
I really am a rookie as far as the historical part goes. I really like modeling Japanese navy aircraft though.
Can you recommend an accurate english language account of the kamikaze activities ?
Thanks again,
Saburo
 
Divine Wind
 
Posted By: richard dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Divine Wind>
Date: Sunday, 14 July 2002, at 6:36 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Hoyt volumes of inaccurracy (Saburo)
 
Saburo
The best single volume is the "Divine Wind" by Inoguchi and Nakajima published by Naval Institute Press in 1958 and possibly still in print in paperback. It has several shortcomings such as repeating the Arima story (but briefly and in context of its value to the Kamikaze effort). It smacks a bit of a justification by the men responsible for implementing the Kamikaze program. The authors were directly involved in the origination of the Navy's Kamikaze program and has the strength of their first hand knowledge. They were assisted by co-author Roger Pineau who had assisted S.E. Morison in writing a seminal US Navy history of WW2 and who had access to important information not then generally available. Final weakness -- it says virtually nothing about Army suicide attacks.
Some flaws, in general excellent book and essential to a study of the area.
Rick
 
Re: Divine Wind
 
Posted By: Jim Broshot <mailto:jbroshot@fidnet.com?subject=Re: Divine Wind>
Date: Sunday, 14 July 2002, at 5:04 p.m.
 
In Response To: Divine Wind (richard dunn)
 
Two others which I have in paperback:
THUNDER GODS THE KAMIKAZE PILOTS TELL THEIR STORY (Hatsuho Naito)(1989)
DIVINE THUNDER (Bernard Millot)(1971)
 
Re: Divine Wind
 
Posted By: John MacGregor <mailto:JohnMacG6@hotmail.com?subject=Re: Divine Wind>
Date: Sunday, 14 July 2002, at 1:41 p.m.
 
In Response To: Divine Wind (richard dunn)
 
There's also 'The Sacred Warriors; Japan's Suicide Legions' by Denis and Peggy Warner and 'Suicide Squads' by Richard O'Neill. This latter covers weapons more than operations (although there is some coverage) and also covers German equipment.
Types of aircraft aboard Hosho?
 
Posted By: Lester Trauth <mailto:ljtfish@bellsouth.net?subject=Types of aircraft aboard Hosho?>
Date: Monday, 15 July 2002, at 12:48 p.m.
 
Gentlemen,
Can someone furnish me with the types of aircraft and the years that Hosho carried them during her service in the IJN?
I am especially interested in 1942 and 1944 and beyond.
Lester
 
Re: Types of aircraft aboard Hosho?
 
Posted By: Allan <>
Date: Monday, 15 July 2002, at 4:31 p.m.
 
In Response To: Types of aircraft aboard Hosho? (Lester Trauth)
 
Lester,
Hosho was a training carrier. From May 20th to June 10th 1942, she carried only 8 B4Y1's. After that, she was in the Inland Sea training new air units. She was also used for new aircraft evaluations, since she was the only one available except when Unryu was 'working up'. If your looking at Hosho's involvement in the Sino Incident, I'll need to to look up those figures for you.
 
Re: Hosho Complement
 
Posted By: Allan <mailto:Wildcat42@AOL.com?subject=Re: Hosho Complement>
Date: Tuesday, 16 July 2002, at 8:22 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Types of aircraft aboard Hosho? (Lester Trauth)
 
Lester,
July 7 1937 to December 1 1937
9 Type 95 [A4N1] Carrier Fighters
6 Type 92 [B3Y1] Carrier Attack Bombers
In December 1 1937, she was placed in reserve. In November 15 1940, she returned to Southern China with:
9 Type 96 [A5M4] Carrier Fighters
6 Type 96 [B4Y1] Carrier Attack Bombers
This remained her complement until CarDiv 3 was deactivated in April 10 1942. By May 20th, she was stripped of her fighters, but had 8 Type [B4Y1] Carrier Attack Bombers for the Midway venture. Her carrier fighters were embarked aboard Zuiho, plus 3 more.
She couldn't handle more than 15 aircraft at anytime, so she was quite limited
Al
aircraft nomenclature
 
Posted By: W. David Dickson <mailto:david.dickson1@worldnet.att.net?subject=aircraft nomenclature>
Date: Monday, 4 February 2002, at 3:16 p.m.
 
In the USN aviators(at least in the past)viewed use of the manufacturer's nicknames with disdain. No pilot would refer to an aircraft as a Wildcat, instead they would call it an F4F and in cases where there was no chance of confusion might shorten it to F6 say for the F6F. Always SBD, never Dauntless etc. Does anyone know what the IJN called their planes? I have heard Japanese refer to the "Zero Sen" for the A6M. Did the post 1943 nicknames take hold? Tenzan for B6N, Suisei for D4Y etc.
 
Re: aircraft nomenclature
 
Posted By: Osamu Tagaya
Date: Monday, 4 February 2002, at 8:37 p.m.
 
In Response To: aircraft nomenclature (W. David Dickson)
 
Dear David,
IJN operational service personnel invariably referred to service aircraft by Type Year: i.e. Rei-sen for Zero, Type 1 Rikko for Betty, 99 Kanbaku for Val, etc. Once official names came into use from 1942 onward, such as "Tenzan", "Suisei", "Raiden" etc., these names were used. In that sense, use of these names by IJN service personnel parallels RAF practice ("Spitfire", "Hurricane", "Lancaster" etc.) and diverges from USN, USAAF and Luftwaffe practice in which aircraft popular names, even if officially adopted, were more for general public consumption and not used much, if at all, by the service professionals themselves.
You should also be made aware that IJN service personnel hardly ever used the short code designations (A6M, G4M, D3A, etc.) These were used in a very narrow, technical context, often limited to reference in documents of a highly technical nature. Same is true of JAAF kitai (airframe) numbers such as Ki43, Ki21 etc. JAAF service personnel, like their JNAF counterparts, also usually referred to aircraft by Type Year (Type 1 Fighter, Type 97 Heavy Bomber, etc.) Names were also used in the army, but not to the exclusion of the Type Year system as in the navy. Thus, Type 4 Fighter was more prevalent than "Hayate". But unless you were with the experimental establishment, an engineer or writing a highly technical document, you would not refer to the aircraft as the Ki84.
There are too many people in the West who think short code designations (B5N2, N1K1-J etc.) and kitai numbers (Ki61, Ki27 etc.) were the "common" nomenclature references used by the JNAF and JAAF service professionals themselves.
 
HTH
Osamu Tagaya
 
Re: aircraft nomenclature
 
Posted By: W. David Dickson <mailto:david.dickson1@worldnet.att.net?subject=Re: aircraft nomenclature>
Date: Tuesday, 5 February 2002, at 6:25 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: aircraft nomenclature (Osamu Tagaya)
 
Thanks,
This conforms with what I would have supposed. I have always preferred to use the IJN short code designations because they track USN practice almost exactly and contain a good deal of information in a very short format. I hated it when the USN dropped its short code designations in the 1960s.
Isnt Sen the short form for Sentoki(fighter plane) and therefore somewhat analogous to VF?
 
Re: aircraft nomenclature
 
Posted By: Osamu Tagaya
Date: Tuesday, 5 February 2002, at 6:53 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: aircraft nomenclature (W. David Dickson)
 
Yes, "Sen" in the context of aircraft nomenclature is typically short for "sentoki", i.e. "fighter plane". In the JNAF, with the exception of the Zero which was referred to simply as "Reisen" ("rei" being Japanese for "zero" i.e. short for Type 0), the full designation being "Rei-shiki Kanjo Sentoki" (Type 0 Shipboard --or Carrier-- Fighter), the word "sen" was usually qualified by subtype. Thus, "96 Kansen"; short for 96-shiki Kanjo Sentoki (Type 96 Shipboard Fighter, i.e. A5M Claude), "2-shiki Suisen"; short for 2-shiki Suijo Sentoki (Type 2 Waterborne--i.e. Seaplane--Fighter, i.e. A6M2-N Rufe).
Sam T.
 
Re: aircraft nomenclature
 
Posted By: UCHIDA, Katsuhiro <mailto:2000GT-B@mui.biglobe.ne.jp?subject=Re: aircraft nomenclature>
Date: Wednesday, 6 February 2002, at 6:59 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: aircraft nomenclature (Osamu Tagaya)
 
Hello David and Osamu,
Follwing is the just additional information.
One of my uncles (ex-G4M gunner/mechanic) said he used to call G4M1 "M-one", call G4M2 "M-two", and call G4M3 "M-three" in English.
And CPO Tomokazu Kasai (ex-343 Ku pilot) says that they called N1K2-J "J Kai (J modified)" when 343 Ku (2nd formation) was formed in late 1944.
Best regards,
Katsuhiro
 
Re: aircraft nomenclature
 
Posted By: Hiroyuki Takeuchi
Date: Friday, 8 February 2002, at 3:57 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: aircraft nomenclature (UCHIDA, Katsuhiro)
 
Yes I have heard of that too. Interesting about G4Ms. Perhaps because the IJN subvariant designation for G4Ms were too detailed (e.g. type 11 and 12 are basically same G4M1s, Type 22 and subvariants of 24, etc. are all M2s, etc.) and maybe it was more convenient to go by just M1 , M2, M3.
Manufacturers and test units natually called types by the numeric designations. In his book "Kyokuchi Sentoki Raiden", Yoji Watanabe's reveals a song sung by the Mitsubishi design team of the Raiden which ends with "J-two, J-two, oh our J-two!".
 
Re: aircraft nomenclature
 
Posted By: richard dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Re: aircraft nomenclature>
Date: Wednesday, 6 February 2002, at 12:13 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: aircraft nomenclature (UCHIDA, Katsuhiro)
 
Katsuhiro
Those terms were also used in documents (at least "M1" and "M2" were common when both were in use).
In documents of 761 Air (RYU?) the terms Dragon M1 and Dragon M2 were also used.
Rick
 
Re: aircraft nomenclature
 
Posted By: W. David Dickson <mailto:david.dickson1@worldnet.att.net?subject=Re: aircraft nomenclature>
Date: Thursday, 7 February 2002, at 6:59 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: aircraft nomenclature (richard dunn)
 
It might be worthwhile at some time to accumulate a reference list of use of Roman letters and numbers as well as Arabic numerals by the IJN. They did it quite a lot in all kinds of formats. I am reminded of a story that went the rounds during the war. It seems the USN had a series of captured photographs of Japanese aircraft and was giving a slide show to some members of congress. One of the congressmen interrupted questioning the authenticity of the "so-called" captured photographs pointing out the numbers on the aircraft were in "English". Some things never change.
I have preferred the A6M etc format because, as said before it imparts a good deal of information and tracks the USN system. I always suspected the Rei-sen format would have been that preferred by operational personnel.
 
Re: aircraft nomenclature
 
Posted By: W. David Dickson <mailto:david.dickson1@worldnet.att.net?subject=Re: aircraft nomenclature>
Date: Thursday, 7 February 2002, at 7:03 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: aircraft nomenclature (W. David Dickson)
 
Should have added-By 1941 the two navies carrier type aircraft were basically the same. VF/VB/VT in both navies with some VS/VSB but to use different nomenclature when referring to one navy than the other seems a little bit. . .
 
Re: aircraft nomenclature
 
Posted By: Osamu Tagaya
Date: Wednesday, 6 February 2002, at 12:07 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: aircraft nomenclature (UCHIDA, Katsuhiro)
 
Hello Uchida san,
Thank you for your very interesting comments. I suppose there are no hard and fast rules, and one cannot be too pedantic about these things. To give a JAAF example, I have heard that service personnel used to refer to the Ki102 as 5-shiki Fuku(za) Sen(toki) [Type 5 Two-(seat) Fighter] although the plane was never officially given an operational type year designation.
On the whole, however, I think it fair to say that, for operational aircraft, the type year system was used much more widely among service personnel.
Tagaya
 
Re: aircraft nomenclature
 
Posted By: Mike Wenger <mailto:wengerm@mindspring.com?subject=Re: aircraft nomenclature>
Date: Thursday, 7 February 2002, at 7:06 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: aircraft nomenclature (Osamu Tagaya)
 
Sam,
It would be interesting to compile a list of Japanese terms used in reference to Allied aircraft. In the kodochoshos, they refer to Hurricanes as "Hurricanes", but always refer to Wildcats as "Grummans". I had never thought of this before. It would be worth going back through my files to check on other types.
Regards,
Mike Wenger
 
Re: aircraft nomenclature
 
Posted By: Osamu Tagaya
Date: Wednesday, 13 February 2002, at 11:37 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: aircraft nomenclature (Mike Wenger)
 
Hi Mike,
Apologies for late response. (Neglect these chat pages for a few days and the postings mushroom.) Good input from many folks. "Lockeedo" is another one, i.e. "Lockeed" for P-38.
Sam
 
Re: aircraft nomenclature
 
Posted By: Dick Williams <mailto:paoduce@aol.com?subject=Re: aircraft nomenclature>
Date: Thursday, 7 February 2002, at 8:56 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: aircraft nomenclature (Mike Wenger)
 
A small point. When visiting Pohnpei (Ponape)Micronesia this past year in June and July, Yamaguchi Hiroshi, born 1931 and a permanent resident, always referred to any Navy/Marine fighter plane, when conversing about them, as a "Grumman". For instance, "Hiro, was it a Hellcat or a Corsair?" Hiro: "It was a Grumman!" Born in 1931, son of a Japanese National and Ponapean mother, he went to Jaluit with family in 1935, returning with mother and brothers in 1941 prior to WW2, as father saw large buildup of Japanese warships there and knew something was coming. Hellcat, Corsair and so on meant nothing to him. "Grummen" always brought forth another story. I also heard other old timers from that era invariably use the same term. Their first language was and is Japanese, with the old pre-WW2/WW2 terminology-for instance the airport, tho modern, is always the "Kasoro" in their vernacular. These people all had close ties to Japanese military and were mostly teen/pre-teen when war came to Ponape in 1944, so it wasn't slang to them-they got it from the military people who were their family/friends. IJA and IJN had been there for years, and there were 3 airfields. HTH
 
Re: aircraft nomenclature
 
Posted By: Hiroyuki Takeuchi
Date: Friday, 8 February 2002, at 3:41 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: aircraft nomenclature (Dick Williams)
 
Most Japanese civilians referred to all single engined allied aircraft "Grumman", too.
Japanese pilots called Corsairs "Shikorusuki (Sikorsky)". I have noted some Japanese veterans wold not recognize the name "Corsair". Then you tell them "Sikorsky" and then they react with a "Ooooh! Shikorusuki
 
First Kamikaze
 
Posted By: richard dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=First Kamikaze>
Date: Friday, 15 March 2002, at 6:27 a.m.
 
Gentlemen
Over on the Army board there has been a discussion on the subject of the first Kamikaze attack or maybe it was first successful attack. In order to define terms, I propose the following (and await barbs, arrows or kind comments):
 
"First Kamikaze attack" -- sortie from Cebu led by Lt (j.g.) Kuniyoshi Kuno on 21 Oct 44. Three Zeros sortied. Two returned. Kuno lost. No known results.
"First Kamikaze success" -- sortie from Davao by elements of Asahi unit and Kikusui unit morning of 25 Oct 44. Total of six Kamikazes and four escort Zeros. Three Kamikazes returned. Three were lost. [US reports Santee hit and two CVEs near missed with slight damage in attack beginning 0740]. Combined Fleet reports Kikusui unit damaged and burned a large carrier 40 mi east of Surigao Strait at 0800. Only Kikusui pilot lost was PO 1/cl Toyofumi Kato.
 
"First Kamikaze sinking" -- sortie from Mabalacat, Luzon, by Shikishima unit led by Lt. Yukio Seki. Total of five Zero Kamikazes and four escorts. All Kamikazes and one escort lost. [US reports St. Lo sunk with other CVEs damaged]. Kamikazes and escorts evaded/engaged US fighters. [Combined Fleet reports a carrier and a cruiser sunk and another carrier damaged at 1045 hours 30 miles from Suluan Island]. Likely St. Lo was hit by third Kamikaze to attack. Since Seki was probably orchestrating the attack he likely attacked later and was probably not the pilot who actually sank St. Lo. [US reports attacks from about 1049 to shortly after 1100].
All these 1st Kamikaze Special Attack Corps units were organized from 201 Ku. All flew Zeros and were flown by Navy pilots.
 
Enough for definitions and proposed agreements. Personal opinion section. Why so little attention to the Davao attackers? The watershed work in this area is "Divine Wind" by Inoguchi and Nakajima helped by Roger Pineau. Inoguchi remained at Mabalcat and Nakajima organized the Kamikazes on Cebu. Neither was at Davao and had no direct knowledge of what went on there. Furthermore the successful attacker was a mere NCO. I have some opinions as to why Seki was lionized but won't clog up the works with that one.
 
Do the above definitions seem about right?
 
Rick
 
Re: First Kamikaze
 
Posted By: Martin <mailto:SkipperGrumby@aol.com?subject=Re: First Kamikaze>
Date: Saturday, 16 March 2002, at 5:22 a.m.
 
In Response To: First Kamikaze (richard dunn)
 
Sounds good to me! I would like to hear your opinion on why Seki is "lionized". One small detail, being intrigued with Nishizawa as I am, you mentioned that Seki's escorts engaged Hellcats, isn't Nishizawa credited with two Hellcats (He was escort leader) on that mission? I've always heard this. Do US records substatiate losing two hellcats? Sometimes it's hard to figure out how many planes the US lost, as the books sometimes will say something like:
"US pilots claimed 13 Zekes for the loss of 2 Pilots." Yes, two pilots who were killed or not found/rescued. US fleet was good about picking up downed US fliers..but how many US planes were SHOT DOWN? Anyone else ever wondered this?
 
cheers!
=Martin
 
Re: First Kamikaze
 
Posted By: richard dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Re: First Kamikaze>
Date: Friday, 15 March 2002, at 11:26 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: First Kamikaze (Malcolm Laing)
 
The information about the Ki 51 attack by 6th FB was supplied by me. I'm still working on the details of that incident. By "Kamikaze" I mean an officially recognized and ordered suicide attack. There is no indication in the 6th FB attack reports that they were intended as suicide attacks.
 
RLD
 
Re: 'Unofficial' Kamikaze attacks?
 
Posted By: John MacGregor <mailto:JohnMacG6@hotmail.com?subject=Re: 'Unofficial' Kamikaze attacks?>
Date: Friday, 15 March 2002, at 12:12 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: First Kamikaze (richard dunn)
 
Richard, your kamikaze chronology seems indisputable - at least to me - but how often were 'unofficial' kamikaze attacks carried out pre-October 1944. I seem to remember something about Ki45s carrying out suicide attacks (off Biak?) earlier in the war; were there others? Was this a regular, if uncommon, happening?
 
Re: 'Unofficial' Kamikaze attacks?
 
Posted By: richard dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Re: 'Unofficial' Kamikaze attacks?>
Date: Friday, 15 March 2002, at 3:13 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: 'Unofficial' Kamikaze attacks? (John MacGregor)
 
John
Back on the Army board Nick Millman raised the same point. I added a few other examples. Won't repeat them here.
As early as 1 Feb 42 off the Marshalls and 19 Feb 42 off Rabaul Japanese land attack planes flown by unit leaders attempted to crash US carriers after suffering battle damage. One just missed and the other left his wing on the carrier deck. This type attack was probably not too uncommon. The Japanese press routinely reported that pilots who were shot down crashed into enemy objectives. Perhaps we should mention Iida at Kanoehe on 7 Dec 41 as the first.
 
This type of tradition seems to me profoundly different than seeking "volunteers" under conditions where to refuse is a great disgrace and where suicide missions are routinely ordered.
 
I first read about the Biak suicide attack about forty years ago and have never seen more details than the date, place and that four Ki 45s were involved. What unit was involved? (Presumably 5th FR which suffered losses that day?). Was the mission ordered as a suicide mission?
Was it a day or night mission? If all four made suicide dives who reported it? We've had a number of exchanges on these boards about Biak combats during late May to early June 44. Nobody has ever mentioned either an Allied version or details of the Japanese version of this story. I'd love to know more.
 
Rick
 
Biak - 27 May 1944
 
Posted By: Larry <mailto:Hldeziv@aol.com?subject=Biak - 27 May 1944>
Date: Saturday, 16 March 2002, at 8:27 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: 'Unofficial' Kamikaze attacks? (richard dunn)
 
Following added to the pot:
5th FR flew what is believed to have been the JAAF's first suicide attack this date, diving on Allied vessels off the southern coast of Biak Island with four Ki-45s led by Major Katsushige TAKATA. At least one Ki-45 smashed into Subchaser 699 causing great damage to the wooden-hulled ship along with many casualties, but she did not sink. Major TAKATA was killed in the attack.
Sources:
Green, William and Gordon Swanborough, Japanese Army Fighters - Part One. World War 2 Fact Files series. London: MacDonald and Jane's, 1976;
Warner, Denis and Peggy Warner, The Sacred Warriors: Japan's Suicide Legions. New York: Avon Books, 1982.
Additional details, especially from Japanese sources, are solicited. Did this 4-plane mission begin as an intentional kamikaze attack? Was it ordered as such by higher authority? I have always read that the first discussions about adopting a formal policy encourging kamikaze attacks were initiated by the IJA (not the IJN) in Tokyo in June 1944. Perhaps the TAKATA mission was a testbed operation preliminary to the development of a formal policy.
(Larry)
 
Re: Biak - 27 May 1944
 
Posted By: Jim Broshot <mailto:jbroshot@fidnet.com?subject=Re: Biak - 27 May 1944>
Date: Saturday, 16 March 2002, at 6:25 p.m.
 
In Response To: Biak - 27 May 1944 (Larry)
 
"At 1100 on Z-Day.... A few minutes later four twin-engined planes came in together, low and down sun. As they cleared the edge of the cliff they were brought under intense antiaircraft fire from ashore and afloat. Two burst into flames and crashed; one, badly hit and smoking, flew off close inshore, and the fourth burst into flames as it passed destroyer SAMPSON, Admiral Fechteler's headquarters ship. The Japanese pilot made a deliberate effort to suicide crash SAMPSON; but antiaircraft fire clipped off part of his wing and the plane passed over the bridge and struck the water 400 yards beyond. Its wing tip hit the water about 20 yards from SC-699 and the plane catapulted into the subchaser, which in a few seconds became engulfed in flame and smoke. With the aid of tug SONOMA the fires were soon extinguished. One man died of his burns, another was missing and eight more were wounded in this freak crash." from Morison's NEW GUINEA AND THE MARIANAS.
SC 699, 95 tons, 107.5 ft x 17 ft x 6 ft, with a crew of 28, is not listed as a war loss in Silverstone's U S WARSHIPS OF WORLD WAR
 
Posted By: Steve Horn <mailto:stevehorn55@hotmail.com?subject=Did This Really Happen?>
Date: Thursday, 7 February 2002, at 11:22 a.m.
 
Koku-Fan Magazine (January, 1983) has an article by Minoru Akimoto on Japanese flying boat operations. On page 248-249:
"A year later the Pacific War broke out and by then the total of 66 type 97s had been deployed sharing 24 each between Hama-ku and Tokoh-ku, 3 with Yokosuka-ku and 15 with Sasebo-ku.
Among them the Hama-ku had its headquarters on Jaluit with its main force deployed to Palau.
In coordination with the Pearl Harbor attack the Hamu-ku with its 24 Type 97s had been ordered to attack Hawland (Howland?) and Baker Islands. Accordingly the unit left Majuro at 1900 hours on the 7th and arrived over the target area early on the morning of the 8th (Dec. 7 Hawaii time). However, failing to confirm the Pearl Harbor operation the unit waved off its attack mission and returned to Majuro. After returning to the station they confirmed the outbreak of war and left for sortie in the evening of the same date. Early in the morning of the 9th (Dec. 8, Hawaii time)the unit attacked both islands and they returned safely."
(Except for Hawaii dates added, the foregoing is verbatim.)
Did this actually happen? Howland Island had a runway built for Amelia Earhart in 1937. Baker Island did not have a runway built (according to my information) until 1943. Were there any US military or naval facilities on either island on 7 December 1941? What did the Japanese expect to bomb on these islands? Can anyone tell me where I could find more on these incidents or even if they actually took place?
Steve Horn
 
Japanese Monograph No. 161 version
 
Posted By: richard dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Japanese Monograph No. 161 version>
Date: Thursday, 7 February 2002, at 12:25 p.m.
 
In Response To: Did This Really Happen? (Steve Horn)
 
"At 0630 hours on 8 December, 15 large flying boats took off from Majiro to attack Howland Island, but, due to bad weather, returned to base without carrying out the mission. On the following day a reconnaissance was made and it was reported that no enemy planes were on the island. Large flying boats of the air unit continued raids on Howland and baker Islands at least once a week in order to keep the islands under observation."
In the last sentence a take "raid" to mean a recon mission.
Mono. 161 also says RO-64 and RO-68 left Kwajalein on Dec4 and RO-63 left on the 8th. The first two shelled the islands on the 11th and the 68 reconned Howland and confirmed an absence of planes (and facilities destroyed)three days later. A bit of obsession?
Other Japanese OOBs show 66 flying boats. 48 in 1st line units and 18 with home units (as cited above).
Rick
 
Re: Japanese Monographs: K-Sakusen
 
Posted By: Allan <mailto:Wildcat42@AOL.com?subject=Re: Japanese Monographs: K-Sakusen>
Date: Friday, 8 February 2002, at 9:45 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Japanese Monographs: K-Sakusen (James F. Lansdale)
 
Jim,
The "K" Sakusen was conceived sometime in late February of '42. This was the Bombing of Hawaii. The "K" was the designator for Hawaii. If the operation was successful, it would be used again. There are two sources, one from the "Rendezvous in Reverse" by Edwin Layton which gives a minute account (March 4/5) of this operation. The other by Ronald Lewin's account in "The American Magic". But the second operation of "K" (Which is an extention of the first), was more complex and involved the 6th Fleet. In other words, there were two operations using the same disignator.
On May 6th, there was a signal sent out for "....to a list of high level addresee's for the 4th Attack Force for a request of 10 crystals for frequencies 4990 and 8990." They had to have them by May 17th. These were received by air on May 12th.
Going back a little, the original "K" was the bombing of Hawaii on March 4/5th and the Recon overflights on March 10th of Midway and Johnston. The second "K", was merely an extension to the original one, and it included using again, French Frigate Shoals and the 3 patrol lines (Submarines) to intercept the US Fleet leaving Pearl. In any event, the US Navy was at FFS, and that portion of "K" was cancelled, but the submarines were late getting to the "Patrol Lines" and TF 16 and 17 slipped past the submarines. This portion of "K" was a failure, as the submarines did not succeed in seeing these two Task Forces, let alone attack them.
The Howland/Baker Island bombardments were nothing more than extensions to the original operation of seizing Tarawa, Makin, and this along with the operation of Aikoku Maru and Hokoku Maru's operation in the Eastern Pacific. These were planned by the 4th Fleet and implemented and considered successful. The big disappointment was the usage of those two AMC, which were expected to garner more shipping than they did. While I can't find the documentation, this was the "RY" Operation. This is not to be confused with the Ocean/Nauru Seizures. The Ocean/Nauru Seizures were an extension of the original plan to be implemented before "FS" Sakusen.
I think Rick can fill in the rest with his Intel and POW interregation reports.
In conclusion, IMO "K" was an ongoing operation, not K one and K two as sometimes mentioned.
FWIW - Al
 
Re: Japanese Monographs: K-Sakusen
 
Posted By: Steve Horn <mailto:stevehorn55@hotmail.com?subject=Re: Japanese Monographs: K-Sakusen>
Date: Friday, 8 February 2002, at 4:19 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Japanese Monographs: K-Sakusen (Allan)
 
As the originator of the question, I am interested in ALL sources about the Howland-Baker recon flights, too. I know that JM stands for the the Japanese Monographs, but what does BKS stand for---and where could I gain access to this source?
Steve Horn
 
Re: Japanese Monographs: K-Sakusen
 
Posted By: Mike Wenger <mailto:wengerm@mindspring.com?subject=Re: Japanese Monographs: K-Sakusen>
Date: Friday, 8 February 2002, at 8:49 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Japanese Monographs: K-Sakusen (Steve Horn)
 
Steve,
"BKS" (if I remember) stands for Boei Kenshujo Senshishitsu, and refers to the War History Office of the Japanese Defense Agency and their set of World War II history volumes, of which there are nearly 100, if I remember correctly. VERY few places have these volumes, even larger university libraries. I am fortunate to have a set closeby at Duke University here in North Carolina.
They are, of course, in Japanese. Consequently, to the average person, very little is helpful apart from charts, etc. However, these volumes give the entire history of Greater East Asia War drawn from Japanese documents, and are an incredible resource if one has the patience (and money) to deal with them.
Mike Wenger
Raleigh, NC
 
Re: Japanese Monographs: K-Sakusen
 
Posted By: Mike Wenger <mailto:wengerm@mindspring.com?subject=Re: Japanese Monographs: K-Sakusen>
Date: Saturday, 9 February 2002, at 4:05 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Japanese Monographs: K-Sakusen (Steve Horn)
 
Steve,
There are no official translations anywhere, and the volumes are ALL in kanji, etc. There has been some interest expressed by the Arizona Memorial folks to get the Pearl Harbor volume done at the University of Hawaii, but nothing definite yet. Any commercial translation would have to run the obstacle course of both U.S./Japanese copyright law, which would be a problem.
The Navy Library in the Washington Navy Yard has a few of the volumes, though by NO MEANS a full set. Unless they have purchased many since about ten years ago, they would not have an extensive collection. They have the Pearl Harbor, Midway, and Guadalcanal volumes, I think. I would try inter-library loan first.
There are a few individuals who have paid an enormous amount of money to get portions of this stuff translated. Because they have paid through the nose, it is understandably difficult to pry the material out of them. I have even translated portions, but let me tell you, it is SLOW going.
Are you the "modeler" Steve Horn? (French Broad, IPMS)? Where have I seen your name?
Might be able to make it to the Winston contest. What is the date? Actually have a pile of kits to sell... nothing special. Was even considering giving them to the Oxford Orphanage.
Regards,
Mike W.
 
Posted By: Cruiser K <mailto:cruiserk@wans.net?subject=Yamamoto mission>
Date: Monday, 20 May 2002, at 10:02 p.m.
 
I was watching an interesting show about the death of Adm. Yamamoto. I have read a lot about this and have heard a lot. Most lately of interest from the show on the history channel is that 16 P-38's took place in the intercept and that only one was shot down, I thought that Sugita had shot down 2 P-38's on this mission. What is utterly suprising to me is that Japan did not know that it's code had been compromised. With P-38's flying from Henderson for the intercept it, even if they repeated the missions to make them appear as if it was a new routine. Interesting gun camera footage that appears to be from the the actual shoot down and an interview with Rex Barber.
 
Cruiser K
 
Re: Yamamoto mission
 
Posted By: Henry Sakaida
Date: Wednesday, 22 May 2002, at 5:20 p.m.
 
In Response To: Yamamoto mission (Cruiser K)
 
I confirm, no gun cameras on the P-38s. I was in a car with Besby Holmes, on the way to the Yamamoto Mission Retrospective in 1988 at Fredericksburg, TX. He told me no camera and he simply shrugged when I asked him why.
I also talked with Rex Barber. He said it happened very fast...boom, boom...from start to finish, about 20 seconds.
Lanphier had stated that when he shot down Yamamoto's Betty, the wing came off and the plane glided into the jungle and exploded. A several WWII era pilots told me that it was impossible...once you loose a wing, the aircraft will tumble! I asked another pilot the same thing, and he said, "That's correct, it will loose stability! It will not glide on one wing!!!"
Indeed, only Ray Hine was shot down. Everyone overclaimed. The USAF Review Board decided to be gutless and kept the status quo, affirming that both Barber and Lanphier get credit. Thanks to efforts by Bunny Darby and others who trekked to the crash site and examined the wreckage, as well as former P-38 veterans like George Chandler who spearheaded the effort to correct the gross injustice, the USAF turned a blind eye.
History will be the judge, and all the reputable aviation historians that I know of, agree that Rex Barber's testimony is credible whereas Lanphier's is not. So, I believe that Rex Barber was the one who shot down Yamamoto's bomber.
Jim Lansdale's recommended sources are terrific. The Yamamoto Mission is NOT ancient history and was solved using modern forensic science and some very fine sleuthing by historians and others.
HENRY
 
Re: Yamamoto mission
 
Posted By: Cruiser K <mailto:cruiserk@wans.net?subject=Re: Yamamoto mission>
Date: Wednesday, 22 May 2002, at 11:56 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Yamamoto mission (Henry Sakaida)
 
Thanks, for the response Henry!
It is always good to hear fear from a Japanese WWII Aviation historian and author of several good books
which I continue to enjoy to read. I should have known
better than to think that that was actual film footage
of the Yamamoto shootdown, but the film of a Betty going down onto the highside of a Jungle mountain and smoking and
crashing seemed to be like I read about it. However I guess it was me jumping to conclusions and the show expertly inserted the demise of some other Betty bomber
being downed. If any of you have seen the show, the substituded gun camera footage was eery.
Thanks again Henry,
Sincerely,
Cruiser K
 
Re: Yamamoto mission
 
Posted By: richard dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Re: Yamamoto mission>
Date: Wednesday, 22 May 2002, at 6:39 p.m.
 
In Response To: (Henry Sakaida)
 
Henry
Perhaps I'm not a "reputable aviation historian", but I suspect I'm the only person on this board who has actually taken cases to the AFBCR (and won) and who understands the law under which they operate and the standards involved.
While I may be sympathetic with your position in this case (and in the Kawato/Boyington matter) I cannot but disagree with the absolute certainty of your statements.
I am no fan of the AFBCR. I could go into their procedures and the law under which they operate but don't want to bore you and others to death.
The AFBCR's position was not a "gross injustice". They are pretty good at correcting gross injustice. It is just in close cases where they fall short but that is entirely consistent with their statutory charter.
The AFBCR spent an extraordinary amount of time and effort on this case. Surely "gutless" is an inappropriate and unworthy term.
There seems to be a big emotional content to this matter. You and others KNOW Barber is credible and Lanphier is not. Huh? The jury (panel of experts not just the AFBCR) decided they couldn't decide that Lanphier had lied (that's what "not credible" means in this context) and you have to believe he lied (not just got details wrong) to deny him partial credit.
Barber got details wrong too. Other US pilots overclaimed. Come on Henry, let's drop the absolute certainty! This is an uncertain business. Henry, you a hero to many people who frequent this board. Please allow logic and circumspection their due.
In a legalistic way I might ask what is the standard of proof of the opinions you have offered: mathematical certainty, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, clear and convincing evidence, or, perhaps, a preponderance of the evidence. Would I be wrong to suspect you have not even thought of the differences? Do you know what standard the AFBCR uses?
Henry, I hope the above is not too rough but opens you to a different perspective on looking at these type matters.
Regards,
Rick
 
Re: "Yamamoto's Last Battle"
 
Posted By: David Aiken <mailto:David_Aiken@hotmail.com?subject=Re: 'Yamamoto's Last Battle'>
Date: Wednesday, 22 May 2002, at 8:42 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Yamamoto mission (richard dunn)
 
Aloha All,
Gosh, it really HAS been twenty years ago that Sam Tagaya and I worked together on the first issue of the old "Japanese Info Clearinghouse" which covered "The Admiral's Last Battle".
In that issue, Sam made the first connection -in English or Japanese- that Shoichi Sugita was the victor over Ray Hine, using in his study the Japanese book: The Six Escorts ...and in that issue is the first mention in English or Japanese that -based on the autopsy report- ONLY Rex Barber could have killed the Admiral ...never mind who shot the plane down!
It was real nice that Cargill Hall in his "Lightning Over Bougainville" [Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution, 1991] cited that issue ...sadly John Wible in his "The Yamamoto Mission" [Frederickburg, Tx: Nimitz Museum,1988], who used that issue -as we also used and cited his previous efforts and help- did not credit that issue.
Great to have met Kenji Yanagiya and Rex Barber in 1988 at that first Nimitz Museum Symposium... and real great to meet Henry Sakaida and Saburo Sakai then, too!
Jeff Ethell and I sat together at the symposium and were both pleased to hear Yanagiya and Holmes detail their final aerial combats of that mission, and we both looked at each other as we realized at the same time, that Holmes had claimed Yanagiya and Yanagiya had claimed Holmes!
Cheers,
David Aiken
 
Re: Yamamoto Mission *PIC*
 
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: Yamamoto Mission *PIC*>
Date: Wednesday, 22 May 2002, at 8:24 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Yamamoto mission (richard dunn)
 
Rick
According to the AFBCR, which accepted a nebulous criterion that any pilot on this mission who fired his weapons in the direction of an enemy aircraft which subsequently became a confirmed kill should share equally in that kill, awarded LANPHIER and BARBER equal shares in downing the YAMAMOTO Betty.
Evidence/records extant regarding actual losses by the Japanese on that mission should result in the final tally for 18 April 1943 to be as follows (using the AFBCR ruling in the BARBER case):
BARBER and LANPHIER 1/2 kill each for one Betty (YAMAMOTO)
BARBER, HOLMES, HINE 1/3 kill each for one Betty (UGAKI)
When this revised tally is made (using the AFBCR ruling/criterion) and then added to each pilot's previous "kill record," none should today be included on a roster of American aces!
Indeed, the American Fighter Aces Association did strip LANPHIER of this designation, but not BARBER nor HOLMES!
I, as a member of the jury, Counselor, find that the forensic evidence (including the YAMAMOTO autopsy report and the DARBY crash scene report) has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that a rear attack (consistent with the BARBER version of what occurred) to have resulted in the death of YAMAMOTO.
It is difficult for me to accept any of the LANPHIER account as acceptable evidence that his attack resulted in any actual strikes on the YAMAMOTO Betty.
I am sure LANPHIER believed he made an attack on the bomber carrying YAMAMOTO. However, the UGAKI diary gives very strong evidence that the UGAKI Betty was attacked first by a single P-38 from the starboard beam (consistent with the LANPHIER account) while UGAKI witnessed the jungle crash of the YAMAMOTO Betty in the distance to UGAKI's port quarter.
It is entirely possible that LANPHIER believed he had downed the Betty over the jungle during this pass/attack on UGAKI because, as he was firing, he also observed the YAMAMOTO bomber crash!
In the event, as I said previously, the criterion that was applied by the AFBCR resulted in their decision to award BARBER and LANPHIER equal credit for the YAMAMOTO bomber.
REQUIESCANT IN PACE!
Jim Lansdale
 
Re: Yamamoto Mission
 
Posted By: richard dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Re: Yamamoto Mission>
Date: Thursday, 23 May 2002, at 6:00 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Yamamoto Mission *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)
 
Jim
I'll only make a couple points. The AFBCR didn't award anybody anything. They refused to correct the existing record as requested by Barber. They did so on the basis that no clear injustice existed to require them to do so.
They obviously do not agree with you that the evidence is so compelling. You cite Ugaki's diary as "strong evidence." Even this strong evidence was written one year after the fact! While Ugaki was making his detailed observations of Yamamoto's bomber his own aircraft was taking violent evasive action. By his own words he lost sight of Yamamoto's bomber (how could it have been otherwise?) during the attack. He himself was involved in a crash seconds after seeing the other bomber in flames and was hospitalized for an extended period. A year later he reconstructed the attack for his diary.
We've read enough combat reports to know well meaning and honest people "see" things that didn't occur and miss obvious things that occur in the heat of battle.
I appreciate all the hard work that has been done in this case and generally agree with the opinion of experts like yourself. I don't find this AFBCR opinion all that satisfying but I think it is well within the bounds of reason and their stautory charter. Of all your comments above I can certainly agree with rest and peace.
Rick
 
Re: Yamamoto Mission: Which Review Board? *PIC*
 
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: Yamamoto Mission: Which Review Board? *PIC*>
Date: Sunday, 26 May 2002, at 7:37 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Yamamoto Mission (richard dunn)
 
Hi Rick
You wrote, "I'll only make a couple points. The AFBCR didn't award anybody anything. They refused to correct the existing record as requested by Barber. They did so on the basis that no clear injustice existed to require them to do so."
Counselor, thou art eminently correct! I humbly submit I got my "boards" mixed up! (;>)
I should have been referring to the 22 March 1985 Victory Credit Board of Review (see the VCBR conclusions below) chaired by Lt.Col. Frederick E. ZOES of the USAFHRC. This mission debate has been going on so long I have lost track of which hearing or forum who said what and what finding was made!
The last tally I have is that we have seen these debates/cases/hearings, with most of the major participants giving/presenting testimony at: the VCBR hearing in 1985; the Nimitz Museum Symposium 17 April 1988; the AFBCR; the Executive Committee of the American Fighter Aces Association; and in a civil court hearing in Oregon! There are probably more I have not listed.
The crux of my major postion in favor of BARBER as THE shooter is contained in the third paragraph below. The 1985 VCBR concluded, "Capt. Lanphier, once disengaged from the Zeros, next struck Yamamoto's bomber broadside, severing a wing."
The forensic evidence does NOT bear out this scenario. To whit: the wings remained intact until crash; the YAMAMOTO autopsy report yields entry wounds from the rear of the torso; and all strikes found on the fuselage extant were from the rear (although it is possible some side hits "could have been" in the area burned beyond the ability to be encoutered).
In addition, UGAKI was very clear in stating that HIS Betty was attacked from the starboard beam (N.B. I know, a year later, but certainly a lot closer to the action time frame than most other sources and less likely to have been corrupted by faulty or wishful memory!).
In the event, I agree, that the mission was spectacular and all the participants exemplify the epitome of the "Greatest Generation."
I grant as fact that LANPHIER: did fire his weapons in anger during this engagement; believed he alone shot down YAMAMOTO; and that the USAF VCBR rendered a judicious conclusion by basing their findings "on the guidelines established by XIII Fighter Command for the awarding of victory credits."
Incidently, this is food for legal thought:
What if we find a copy of these XIII Fighter Command general orders "for the awarding of victory credits" and find, as I suspect, they were cut AFTER 18 April 1943?
Do we reopen the case by appealing the USAFR VCBR of 22 March 1985 findings as being invalid?
Over.
Jim Lansdale
 
Tail versus Wing
 
Posted By: richard dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Tail versus Wing>
Date: Sunday, 26 May 2002, at 1:39 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Yamamoto Mission: Which Review Board? *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)
 
Jim
As the AFBCR opinion points out neither Barbar nor Lanphier's story fits exactly with later discovered evidence. One supportable theory is that they both attacked in a very narrow time frame. Each saw something fly off the bomber. One thought it was the tail. One thought it was a wing. Turns out it was probably part of the tail.
My whole point is not that I doubt Barber inflicted serious and possibly killing damage on Y's bomber. But I remain open to the possibility that Lanphier also fired on it and possibly inflicted some damage. If he shot part of the tail off his bullets wouldn't necessarily have been the ones that hit the Admiral.
Two or more people firing on the same aircraft and not realizing others were firing at it seems to have been one of the most common reasons for overclaming. I think it is pretty clear Lanphier and Barber separated at the very beginning of the combat and didn't keep track of one another. Both clearly claimed bombers over the jungle. That was Y's bomber. Unless one of them is lying they both attacked Y's bomber.
If you look at their stories and this combat in isolation lots of things look fishy. If you look at it as one of many combats involving overclaiming (and claims exceeding the number of aircraft present) it doesn't really look that remarkable.
If I get the time I'll post a first hand story from a G4M1 pilot who I suspect was claimed as a victory by several USAAF pilots in a single combat. There was 2:1 overclaiming of Bettys on the mission in question.
Regards,
Rick
 
Re: Tail versus Wing
 
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: Tail versus Wing>
Date: Sunday, 26 May 2002, at 5:43 p.m.
 
In Response To: Tail versus Wing (richard dunn)
 
Hi Rick
I truly understand your point!
A computer model of the maneuvers, as described by both pilots produced by SYMA is not a bad place to begin in understanding the time-line of the attack ... and realizing LANPHIER did not have much time to get back to attack the Y bomber after BARBER did.
Scenario in the computer model (as best I recall!):
LANPHIER turns to port during his initial approach into the Zeros, continued in a climbing manuever, and turned wide left to come around within the time window required to place him abeam of the UGAKI bomber.
BARBER, during the inttial approach, banked hard-right behind the Y bomber (losing site of the UGAKI bomber whose pilot has described a P-38 above him). BARBER shoots at Y bomber from the rear, and banks right toward the coast pursued by the Zeros LANPHIER turned into!
LANPHIER, continuing his left turn is above BARBER now and coming in abeam of the UGAKI bomber, fires, passes behind the tail gunner (who was described as actively shooting), and observes the Y bomber crash in front of him at the same time as UGAKI witnesses the same scene.
That is the way I see it! But, we will never know for sure!
Thanks for the exercise!
Jim Lansdale
 
Re: Yamamoto Mission - Lost Reports
 
Posted By: Mike Wenger <mailto:wengerm@mindspring.com?subject=Re: Yamamoto Mission - Lost Reports>
Date: Thursday, 23 May 2002, at 5:49 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Yamamoto Mission *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)
 
Jim, et al,
I may be mistaken here, but I wanted to interject this.
Regarding the Japanese records of this incident which may or may not exist:
I cannot remember who told me this (I think that it was John Lundstrom) but I was informed that someone doing research over at the War History Office in Tokyo claimed that the Kodochoshos for the Yamamoto action had been torn out of their bindings (these documents are bound into volumes 2-3 inches thick). I can tell you from personal experience that it is difficulr to work without them, as they comprise the principle surviving body of air combat reporting by the Japanese Navy...
Hence, the uncertainty and difficulty of getting to the meat of the matter.
I greatly admire Henry Sakaida's attention to detail and thirst for the truth. He knows that it is a ticklish matter taking at face value the personal reminiscences or documents of one side only, particularly those relating to aerial combat. And if you don't think reports are inaccurate, have a video camera run over your shoulder while you play European Air War, write up a mission report, and then compare the two. It is an illuminating exercise.
Regards,
Mike Wenger
 
Re: Yamamoto Mission *PIC*
 
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: Yamamoto Mission *PIC*>
Date: Wednesday, 22 May 2002, at 4:20 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Yamamoto mission (Rick)
 
Hi Rick
A detailed bibliography for all aspects of the Yamamoto Mission would take far two long to compile here. Between the magazine articles and books written on the subject the list would be well over fifty!
The primary sources for American participation include mission, combat, and intelligence reports found in the USAFHRC and NARA; as well as the "Transcript of Proceedings, Air Force Board for Correction of Records, Application of Col Rex T. Barber, October 10, 1991."
Japanese primary sources available in English include the Admiral UGAKI diary (translated by Masataka CHIHAYA and published by the U. of Pittsburgh Press under the title of "Fading Victory").
The forensic reports on the body of Admiral YAMAMOTO (contained in "The Reluctant Admiral" by AGAWA) and of the Betty aircraft at the crash scene (conducted by Charles DARBY and found in the court transcripts) provide powerful evidence that the Admiral died at the hands of Rex BARBER and NOT Tom LANPHIER.
A balance of secondary sources (which would include neutral or biased accounts!) and which discuss the mission and controversey in detail are contained in:
"Get Yamamoto," DAVIS. Random House:1969
"The Yamamoto Mission," WIBLE. Nimitz Museum:1988
"Lightning Over Bougainville," HALL. Smithsonian Institute:1991
"Attack On Yamamoto," GLINES. Orion Books:1990
I personally have many other documents, photographs, and microfilm. Doug CANNING (who flew on the mission) is a close friend who lived in my home after the war. Doug is the Ramrod for the 347th Fighter Group Association and he has provided an enormous volume of correspondence, records, and personal insights into the dynamics of the controversey between BARBER and LANPHIER.
Much of this material is currently being used for a "work in progress," however, if there is interest, I will post some of it on the appropriate MB (e.g. photos of the P-38's flown on the mission on the Everything Else MB).
HTH
Jim Lansdale
 
Re: Yamamoto mission
 
Posted By: Cruiser K <mailto:cruiserk@wans.net?subject=Re: Yamamoto mission>
Date: Tuesday, 21 May 2002, at 6:55 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Yamamoto mission (Rick)
 
Dear Rick,
I have gathered information about the Yamato mission from various sources. A good book that talks about this mission from the Japanese perspective is Zero: The Story of Japan's air war in the pacific- as seen by the enemy, from Bantam books by Okumiya, Horikoshi, and Caidan. I also received some fun yet semi-fictional information from the movie titled Zero, (which is based loosely on the story of
Sugita) also look for the time life books WWII series, I cannot be sure which volumes but there is information on the Adm. Yamamoto, and the intercept as well. The interviews shown on the show were problably conducted in the late 70's or early 80's. However there were probably a few that were recent.
Cruiser K
 
Re: Yamamoto mission
 
Posted By: Bill Leyh <mailto:hawk81@pacbell.net?subject=Re: Yamamoto mission>
Date: Tuesday, 21 May 2002, at 12:01 a.m.
 
In Response To: Yamamoto mission (Cruiser K)
 
Hi Cruiser,
Yessiree, that show definitely made it to my tape library.
Hine was the only pilot lost on the mission. There was some over-claiming on the part of the zero escort pilots, which is understandable in the circumstances. I believe the gun camera footage used in the show was from another source. As I understand it, none of the participating P-38s carried gun camera and/or film. Strange, eh?
That show was the first mention I'd ever heard about follow-up missions to the area to preserve the appearance of serendipity.
It's astonishing that the Japanese didn't choose to err on the side of safety and change their coding system after the raid. It was incredibly cooperative of them.
There are simply not enough superlatives in my vocabulary to describe the great piloting and navigation skills that Mitchell displayed in successfully carrying out that mission. An incredible feat by any standard.
Best regards,
Bill
 
Re: Yamamoto mission
 
Posted By: Sander Kingsepp <mailto:sander@presshouse.ee?subject=Re: Yamamoto mission>
Date: Tuesday, 21 May 2002, at 12:31 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Yamamoto mission (Cruiser K)
 
Hi Cruiser,
Actually the cryptological background of the Yamamoto shootdown was even more complicated. Check out the following article (there is a brief English summary) or "Gunkan Nagato no Shogai" (Vol. III) by Agawa Hiroyuki for more details.
I also believe that both sides were overclaiming in this particular case. The report sent to Halsey mentioned something like "three Zeros added to the score sum total six". Until 1969 it was generally assumed that a total of three Bettys were downed and the Zeros were claimed as late as in ĺ88.
Regards,
Sander
 
Return to Navy Message Board Threads