Pearl Harbor

Pearl Harbor

Topics:
Pearl Harbor Aircraft: Markings/Camouflage
Colors & Codes
Official Japanese Pearl Harbor losses
Who's credited w/sinking Ariz.?
PH J-aircraft Launched?
Pearl Harbor tail number discovery!
Which Makino?
Lt. Cdr. Tadashi Kaneko
Pearl Harbor Zero fuselage stripes and tail mrkngs
Need information about PH Kates
Egusa's D3A1 @ Pearl harbor (New)
Painting the Pearl Planes (New)
Pearl Harbor Kate Wing-Markings *PIC* (New)
Arizona bomber (New)
Pearl Harbor Kates (New)
Type 99 #80 Mark 5 800 kg AP bomb (New)

Pearl Harbor Aircraft: Markings/Camouflage

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Pearl Harbor Aircraft: Markings/Camouflage> Date: Friday, 11 August 2000, at 7:14 a.m.

On-going research into the true colors and markings of IJNAF aircraft which participated in the attack on Pearl Harbor has resulted in a compilation and analysis of remains from seven individual Japanese aircraft. In some cases the overall scheme is known, while in other cases the evidence is fragmentary. Beginning next week, Dave PLUTH will post a series of previously un-published photographic images of the remains of three separate Mitsubishi A6M2 model 21 Zeros downed at Pearl on 7 December 1941 (HIRANO, IIDA, and NISHIKAICHI).
Remains and photographs from the IIDA Zero, which include upper and lower surfaces, as well as a fuselage piece and rudder fabric from the HIRANO Zero, and rudder fabric of the NISHIKAICHI Zero leave no doubt that the aircraft in question where painted hairyokushoku (gray-green) on all surfaces. The analyses of the remains have been carried out by Jim LONG, Bob MIKESH, Todd PEDERSON, Greg SPRINGER, and myself.
It had been hoped to publish these photographs in the revised edition of the THORPE "IJA/NAF Camouflage and Markings" book/s. However, in the interest of getting this information out more quickly to the public, Dave PLUTH has agreed to post this material to benefit the visitors to his web site.
Other participating aircraft downed at Pearl, including two Kates and two Vals, will be featured at a later date (pending the final laboratory analysis of their colors).
Jim Lansdale

Re: Pearl Harbor Aircraft: Markings/Camouflage

Posted By: Daryl Walters <mailto:darylwal@quixnet.net?subject=Re: Pearl Harbor Aircraft: Markings/Camouflage> Date: Sunday, 20 August 2000, at 7:14 p.m.

In Response To: Pearl Harbor Aircraft: Markings/Camouflage (James F. Lansdale)

Hey Jim my name is Daryl and I am an avid Japanese aircraft modeler, I am currently gathering information on aircraft markings and squadrons from the six carriers of the Pearl Harbor attack force, would you happen to have any pictures or know of a book or another web site that this information could be found.
Thank You for your help
Sincerely Daryl S. Walters

Colors & Codes

Posted By: Bob Morris <mailto:rmorris@expression.org?subject=Colors & Codes> Date: Sunday, 4 February 2001, at 8:30 a.m.

Hello, Is there a publication giving the colors of command stripes and tail codes for PH AC, Kates in particular? Have seen some info in B&W but can't read Japanese. If not can anyone give me the info if I give thme the particulars? Appreciate any information. Bob

Re: Colors & Codes for PH acft

Posted By: Mike Quan <mailto:MnkQuan@worldnet.att.net?subject=Re: Colors & Codes for PH acft> Date: Monday, 5 February 2001, at 6:30 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Colors & Codes for PH acft (Bob Morris)

Sorry Bob,
The title of the book is Model Art No. 573, Pearl Harbor Attack Team. If you access the HobbyLink Japan front page (www.hlj.com) and click on advanced search on the left, you can enter "Pearl Harbor" under KEYWORD and "Books" under CATEGORY. That should bring up stock number MDA573.
HTH,

Official Japanese Pearl Harbor losses

Posted By: Ron Werneth <mailto:ron1977@interaccess.com?subject=Official Japanese Pearl Harbor losses> Date: Monday, 16 October 2000, at 1:42 p.m.

Hello,
I am trying to confirm the official losses of Iida's Zero Squadron (Soryu) during the 2nd Wave. Has anybody seen any official Japanese documents on the attack or official reports? I am trying to confirm Fujita's PH account.
Thanks,
Ron

Re: Official Japanese Pearl Harbor losses

Posted By: Allan <mailto:Wildcat42@AOL.com?subject=Re: Official Japanese Pearl Harbor losses> Date: Tuesday, 17 October 2000, at 8:17 a.m.

In Response To: Official Japanese Pearl Harbor losses (Ron Werneth)

Ron,
The following are listed on Page 375 in Izawa and Hata'e "Naval Aces....." Book
Lt. Iida Fusata (Lost to Ground Fire at Kanohe) PO2c Ishii Saburo (Lost on return to Soryu) PO1c Shun-ichi Atsumi (Lost over Hawaii to AAF)

Re: Official AC Losses, Soryu

Posted By: Mark E. Horan <mailto:mhoran@snet.net?subject=Re: Official AC Losses, Soryu> Date: Tuesday, 17 October 2000, at 6:55 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Official Japanese Pearl Harbor losses (Ron Werneth)

Soryu lost five AC and seven aircrew in the PH attack, all in Wave II:
Fusata Iida.......A6M 1st Shotai, plane 1 Shunichi Atsumi...A6M 1st Shotai, plane 2 Saburo Ishii......A6M 1st Shotai, plane 3 Satoru Kawasaki...D3A 21st Shotai, plane 2 pilot Ryochi Takahashi..D3A 21st Shotai, plane 2 rear Hideyasu Kuwabara.D3A 22nd Shotai, plane 3 rear Kenji Maruyamau...D3A 22nd Shotai, plane 3 pilot
Source: Japanese strike rosters

Re: Japanese KIA over Pearl Harbor

Posted By: David_Aiken <mailto:David_Aiken@hotmail.com?subject=Re: Japanese KIA over Pearl Harbor> Date: Wednesday, 18 October 2000, at 12:48 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Air Losses or Pearl Harbor (Allan)

Aloha Al, Check the complete Japanese 7 Dec 1941 KIA crew roster [and carriers] given on page 91 in EAST WIND RAIN by Stan Cohen with Ernie Arroyo, Bob Bracci, David Aiken, et al [Missoula, MT; Pictorial Histories Pub; 1991 and later editions]. While there check out the roster "Total Participants" in the 1994 and later editions. Cheers, David Aiken

Who's credited w/sinking Ariz.?

Posted By: Larry Bishop <mailto:dak57@home.com?subject=Who's credited w/sinking Ariz.?> Date: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 6:11 p.m.

Need name of crew and aircraft markings of the plane that is supossedly credited with deliverying the fatal blow to the Arizona. I have the 2 Model Art specials on Pearl Harbor. Is the aircraft shown in the profiles? TIA.

Re: repeat: Hiryu unit hit Az not Soryu

Posted By: David_Aiken <mailto:David_Aiken@hotmail.com?subject=Re: repeat: Hiryu unit hit Az not Soryu> Date: Wednesday, 20 December 2000, at 7:25 a.m.

In Response To: Who's credited w/sinking Ariz.? (Larry Bishop)

Aloha All, Two KATE units flew over USS Arizona to drop bombs. One was from KAGA which dropped five bombs: one hit USS Arizona aft, one hit USS Vestal forward...three missed.
One KATE unit from HIRYU dropped five bombs: again one hit Vestal aft, one hit USS Arizona forward...three missed.
Gordon Prange wrote Tora 3 [published in Reader's Digest in Engish in three installments] BEFORE he obtained the Japanese Kodochosho [combat reports]. Soryu bombardier Kanai [flying in BI-318] had been killed at Wake and his diary was discovered among his effects. Prange read how Kanai bombed Battleship Row [Kodochosho says: the paired USS West Virginia/USS Tennessee], but Prange errored in use of the diary to say Kanai bombed USS Arizona. Prange's students did not correct Prange's incomplete revision of his Tora manuscript, thus Prange's AT DAWN WE SLEPT has major problems in the "Battle Section" of the book.

Re: Who's credited w/sinking Ariz.?

Posted By: Jim Szabo <mailto:nickel107@aol.com?subject=Re: Who's credited w/sinking Ariz.?> Date: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 5:47 p.m.

In Response To: Who's credited w/sinking Ariz.? (Larry Bishop)

Larry,
This is a question I have asked as well. Allow me to pass on the info that I recieved. As per David Aiken, from East Wind Rain, LCDR Tadashi Kusumi was the pilot of a high level "Kate" from the Hiryu that dropped the 800kg armor piercing bomb at the No. two turret of Arizona.
From another, who's E-mail name I have lost, lists Ltjg Seijio Kondo as the Bombadier/Observer and Maseo Fukuda as the Radio/Gunner.
Unfortunately, I think it's unable to be determined what the tail code was for this aircraft. However, if I have followed along correctly, It may be BII 307. I say this because I remember seeing a post by David Aiken where he stated that only one 800kg bomb was successful that day. To me, that means Arizona. This is my interpretation only, mind you. In addition, Kusumi was a Group Leader, so if I have been attentive, that's two command stripes on the tail, possibly blue.
If I am incorrect on this, just follow the threads. They'll set you straight. These guys in here are experts, they really know their stuff.
Good Luck,
Jim

Re: Who's credited w/sinking Ariz.?

Posted By: Larry Bishop <mailto:dak57@home.com?subject=Re: Who's credited w/sinking Ariz.?> Date: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 8:00 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Who's credited w/sinking Ariz.? (Jim Szabo)

Thanks for the info. It's interesting and conflicting with the info I got. 2 sources say W.O. Haruo Sato(pilot), NAP 1?c Noboru Kanai(observer/bombadier), and NAP 2/C Yoshikazu Hanada(gunner)are credited with hit on the Arizona. They were in the 2nd aircraft, 1st squadron, 1st section, from the Soryu. Tail markings were BI-318, red outlined in white, and fuselage stripe was blue outlined in white. Dave Aiken just emailed me and said 5 bombs were dropped from this section, and all were hits..... which bomb hit where????? Nothing like adding more questions to the question.

Best regards
Larry

Re: Who's credited w/sinking Ariz.?

Posted By: David_Aiken <mailto:David_Aiken@hotmail.com?subject=Re: Who's credited w/sinking Ariz.?> Date: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 6:31 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Who's credited w/sinking Ariz.? (Jim Szabo)

Aloha All, The five plane group, led by Lt Cmdr Kusumi, dropped five bombs on the paired USS Arizona/USS Vestal. There were one hit each on each ship (one exploded USS Az). Which of the five dropped which bomb... Cheers, David

Re: Who's credited w/sinking Ariz.?

Posted By: Randy Date: Saturday, 16 December 2000, at 9:00 p.m.

In Response To: Who's credited w/sinking Ariz.? (Larry Bishop)

Hi:
Offhand I forget the name but the man was killed at Wake Island...you'll get the dope before too long.

Re: Who's credited w/sinking Ariz.?

Posted By: Tony Feredo <mailto:aferedo@ibahn.net?subject=Re: Who's credited w/sinking Ariz.?> Date: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 7:49 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Who's credited w/sinking Ariz.? (Randy)

Was it a certain "Kanai"??? who dropped the bomb on the Arizona but was shot down and killed during the Wake Island invasion????

PH J-aircraft Launched?

Posted By: Dave Pluth <mailto:dave@j-aircraft.com?subject=PH J-aircraft Launched?> Date: Monday, 26 February 2001, at 5:02 p.m.

Hi all,
A friend of mine asked me about the number of Japanese Aircraft actually launched. From what I can gather from the Thorpe/Maloney book Tora Tora Pearl Harbor the Attack Organization is as follows:

First Wave 1st Group Akagi 30 Kates Kaga 27 Kates Soryu 18 Kates Hiryu 18 Kates
2nd Group Shokaku 27 Vals Zuikaku 27 Vals
3rd Group Akagi 9 Zeros Kaga 9 Zeros Soryu 9 Zeros Hiryu 6 Zeros Shokaku 6 Zeros Zuikaku 6 Zeros

2nd Wave 1st Group Zuikaku 27 Kates Shokaku 27 Kates
2nd Group Soryu 18 Vals Hiryu 18 Vals Akagi 27 Vals Kaga 14 Vals
3rd Group Akagi 9 Zeros Kaga 9 Zeros Soryu 9 Zeros Hiryu 9 Zeros

Three questions about this:
First, are these the numbers that are actually launched or planned for launch?
Second, how many supplemental aircraft (recon/scout etc) where out there and what were they?
Third, what is the best and more accurate source of information for the actual numbers?

Thanks in advance.
Dave

Re: Pearl Harbor Japanese a/c Launched, etc!

Posted By: David_Aiken <mailto:David_Aiken@hotmail.com?subject=Re: Pearl Harbor Japanese a/c Launched, etc!> Date: Monday, 26 February 2001, at 8:04 p.m.

In Response To: PH J-aircraft Launched? (Dave Pluth)

Aloha Dave, The book is EAST WIND RAIN by Stan Cohen, with Ernie Arroyo, Bob Bracci, David Aiken, et al [Missoula, MT: Pictorial Histories; 1981, revised 1991, corrected 1994] $14.95: THE largest photo history of the attack in ANY language.
On page 15-16 of the 1994 and newer editions is the roster: "Total Participants" by David Aiken.
This roster gives the total on the six carriers, total carrier aircraft used in the operation, total intended for the attack (with their leader names) on Oahu, total mechanical aborts before the planes were deck spotted, total that took off and includes the number that aborted after launch, and total in the combat air patrol.
Despite Prange's books, there were NO losses in takeoff in either wave.
HTH, Cheers, Taisa Banzai Shinjuwan Sakusen Sensei

Re: PH J-aircraft Launched?

Posted By: Chuck Nimsk <mailto:cnimsk@aol.com?subject=Re: PH J-aircraft Launched?> Date: Monday, 26 February 2001, at 6:13 p.m.

In Response To: PH J-aircraft Launched? (Dave Pluth)

I feel a bit embarrassed in writing this as I'm not even a quarter the expert most of the readers of this site would be but...I have to put that History Degree I have to work somewhere....So...

For my money, the work of Gordon Prange and company would be hard to beat. They would be an excellent source. In an appendix to "The Way It Was - PEARL HARBOR - The Original Photographs", I count Akagi as launching 27 Kates...not 30. To the best of my research she never carried 30 operational Kates. The Kaga launched 27 Kates, as did Shokaku and Zuikaku with Hiryu and Soryu launching 18 apiece. They were divided as follows: Akagi launched 15 Kates as level bombers in the first wave of the attack, and 12 as torpedo bombers. Kaga launched 14 as level bombers and 12 as torpedo bombers. I believe one Kaga aircraft broke down on the flight deck and wasn't launched. The level bombers were broken down into sub-flights of 5 aircraft each - giving a total of 10 attack groups if you will. The Hiryu launched 10 Kates as level bombers as did the Soryu. Both Soryu and Hiryu launched 8 Kates as torpedo bombers. The Zuikaku and Shokaku didn't launch any of their Kates until the second wave when each contributed 27 all as level bombers.

For dive bombers, in the first wave apparently some 51 aircraft were launched, all from the Zuikaku and Shokaku, with the Shokaku actually launching 26 Vals and Zuikaku 25 carrier bombers.

In the second wave, Agaki launched some 18 Vals, Kaga 26, Soryu 17 Vals, and Hiryu 17 also with Lt. Kobayshi having to abort due to engine trouble on the flight deck.

In Zeros....For the first wave, Akagi contributed 9, Kaga 9, Soryu 8, Hiryu 6, Shokaku 6, and Zuikaku 5. It is mentioned in the text of "At Dawn We Slept" that two Zeros crashed on takeoff. I haven't a clue as to which ship/ships these aircraft were from.

For the second wave Akagi Kaga, and Soryu launched 9 aircraft and Hiryu 8.

I hope this will serve as a starting point for others. I will be curious as to any different numbers that are presented.

Chuck Nimsk

Re: Prange vs Senshi Sosho: Hawai Sakusen

Posted By: David_Aiken <mailto:David_Aiken@hotmail.com?subject=Re: Prange vs Senshi Sosho: Hawai Sakusen> Date: Monday, 26 February 2001, at 8:24 p.m.

In Response To: Re: PH J-aircraft Launched? (Chuck Nimsk)

Hi Chuck, Gordon Prange did a beautiful job with his text TORA, TORA, TORA (published in Japan in 1966). However, in 1967 the Japanese government printed SENSHI SOSHO: HAWAI SAKUSEN based on documents hidden by Japan from the Occupation troops. Prange began to change his TORA manuscript for US publication using that volume. With his interest in "cause" and "effect", those sections were changed by his death. The "battle" section never got changed and the book came out as AT DAWN WE SLEPT.

HTH, David Aiken a Director Pearl Harbor History Associates, Inc.

Re: Prange vs Senshi Sosho: Hawai Sakusen

Posted By: Chuck Nimsk <mailto:cnimsk@aol.com?subject=Re: Prange vs Senshi Sosho: Hawai Sakusen> Date: Monday, 26 February 2001, at 10:02 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Prange vs Senshi Sosho: Hawai Sakusen (David_Aiken)

Hi David!
For what it's worth, I've just put in an order with Barnes and Nobel to find a copy of East Wind Rain. Curiousity will bleed a bank account!
Thank you for the information about the battle portions of Prange's books. I still think that in the over all, his works are hard to beat. But, nothing is sacrosanct or should be, IMHO in history. I look forward to more information and "enlightenment".

Given that this year is the 60th anniversary of the attack, and that hopefully a new movie will heighten public awareness once more of those events at Pearl so many years ago, correcting assumptions, mistaken beliefs and the like is important. A focus on what actually happened, the people involved, the why it happened the way it did rather then on fixing blame, trying to create conspiracies, blaming the British, or Washington or whatever, can only be to the good.

Chuck

Re: The Blue Marble

Posted By: David_Aiken <mailto:David_Aiken@hotmail.com?subject=Re: The Blue Marble> Date: Tuesday, 27 February 2001, at 6:16 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Prange vs Senshi Sosho: Hawai Sakusen (Chuck Nimsk)

Hi Chuck, You are very correct! "public awareness once more of those events at Pearl so many years ago, correcting assumptions, mistaken beliefs and the like is important. A focus on what actually happened, the people involved, the why it happened the way it did rather then on fixing blame, trying to create conspiracies, blaming the British, or Washington or whatever, can only be to the good"

The Pearl Harbor History Associates, Inc. is preparing for that onslaught. We are working with several web sites on a host of connections, bringing many specialists in aspects of the attack into position to respond in "Keeping the Record Straight" (PHHA motto).
Keep tuned to as we develop the largest Pearl Harbor Attack site "on the blue marble".
Cheers, David Aiken a Director Pearl Harbor History Associates, Inc.

The blue marble connection

Re: PH J-aircraft Launched?

Posted By: Grant Goodale <mailto:grant.goodale@sympatico.ca?subject=Re: PH J-aircraft Launched?> Date: Monday, 26 February 2001, at 6:03 p.m.

In Response To: PH J-aircraft Launched? (Dave Pluth)

Dave
Regarding the recon birds at PH, there were Jakes from Tone and Chikuma, and a sub launched Glen. There was also an Emily but I think that it was later, possibly in 1942.

HTH
Grant
Pearl Harbor tail number discovery!

Posted By: Ron W. <mailto:epfan12000@yahoo.com?subject=Pearl Harbor tail number discovery!> Date: Sunday, 13 May 2001, at 7:17 a.m.

Hello all,
Today I stumbled across something that surprised me while visiting the home of PH Type 97 "Kate" navigator Harou Yoshino. Several people have asked him over the years for his PH tail number, but of course after several decades since the war, he forgot. Well, today we discovered it. Written on the back of his PH crew photo was his tail number - AII-305
He crewed this airplane with pilot Ichiji Nakagawa and gunner/radioman Mitsuo Kawasaki as a 1st Wave torpedo plane from the "Kaga". Neat stuff.

Regards,
Ron W.

Which Makino?


Posted By: Jim Broshot Date: Monday, 18 June 2001, at 11:19 p.m.

I'm no expert in this area but I would like to note that in AICHI D3A1/2 VAL (Peter C. Smith) it says, that during the Pearl Harbor raid,
"One particularly heavy loss was the leader of the KAGA dive bomber force, Lieutenant Saburo Makino."

I also note that Makino seems to have been a somewhat common name. There is a Makino mentioned in Lundstrom's book on Guadalcanal and two naval Makinos in the index to BLOODY SHAMBLES - Part Two.

Re: Which Makino?

Posted By: David_Aiken <mailto:David_Aiken@hotmail.com?subject=Re: Which Makino?> Date: Thursday, 21 June 2001, at 8:54 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Which Makino? (David_Aiken)

Aloha Mr Eggers, Sorry you have felt anger that I have not released to the general public such research material still in work...
As to the families of the deceased....[for which you have challenged I have not] they know...everything I know.
My first thought, and my last is with the bereaved.

Gosh, to the rest of the readership...I stand by the witness testimony that Makino flew on after the crash of the plane in the photos.
May God shine his face upon you and give you peace.
Aloha nui loa, David Aiken

Re: Which Makino?

Posted By: Jim Szabo <mailto:Nickel107@aol.com?subject=Re: Which Makino?> Date: Friday, 22 June 2001, at 6:08 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Which Makino? (David_Aiken)

It troubles me to see these researches at odds over the evidence concerning the Makino crash. I would like to think that researchers could collectively share material in a scholarly and professional fashion, the ultimate goal being the discovery of the facts. I also understand the natural response of appropriate credit for such discoveries, hopefully checked by some degree of professionalism in the fashion that the facts are of the primary importance. Mr. Egger and Mr. Pederson are to be commended for thier hard work and research over the years on this crash site and the information associated with it. However, the funny thing about history is how over time new evidence appears to change the picture either slightly or completely. Davey Crockett at the Alamo is one such example that comes to mind. From a Mexican soldier's diary it now appears that Mr. Crockett survived the battle only to be exicuted by Santa Anna. I digress. The work on the Makino crash site may lead to other discoveries at some point, or may aid in completing another puzzle. This in my opinion, emphasizes the importance of the work on the crash site.
In regards to Mr. Aiken, I am sure that his declaration concerning this site must have some grounding. From what I interpret, he is aware of eyewitness testimony that Makino was physically seen after this crash. I can also understand his reluctance with whatever information he has regarding it's release, especially if he has been burned before. As far as MIA remains, as a member of the USN it is something that I feel strongly about as well. If Mr. Aiken has notified the families or appropriate government agencies of those concerned but has not released the info because of a work in progress, I see no ethical problems with that. I would hope that whatever evidence the two parties have could be shared so that the truth is known. That may be idealistic thinking; but probably unrealistic. Eventually, Mr. Egger, Mr. Pederson, and Mr. Aiken's evidence will either resolve a mystery, aid in solving another, or be refuted. This is the path to resolution. All of their work is to be commended in the pursuit of solving the mysteries of Pearl Harbor, in addition to the documentation of the facts known to date.

Re: Be careful of releasing data before it is time

Posted By: David_Aiken <mailto:David_Aiken@hotmail.com?subject=Re: Be careful of releasing data before it is time> Date: Wednesday, 20 June 2001, at 8:23 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Which Makino? (Bob Morris)

Aloha Bob, You posted, "If you know where the Makino we're talking about died ...tell where, when and how". Francis Gary Powers said in his book that he never told the Russians the true altitude of the U-2 and that he wouldn't tell them for the price of a book. There are higher priorities for NOT telling "where, when and how" on Makino.

Mr Landale posted, "To date, you have written statements which border on riddles and/or profess veiled prophecies. It would be far better to offer concrete evidence to substantiate the statements/allusions/conjectures which you make. Many of our readers have asked, as I have repeatedly, for citations or evidence.

These are the protocols which true scholars accept and follow."

A brief introduction to those who do not know Mr Lansdale or me. I have been researching to locate, identify, and recover the MIA American and Japanese airmen of 7 Dec 1941. This project is now in its 35th year.

Many folk want the crash locations of existing sites. A pair of "Pearl Harbor goggles from a Japanese crash" sells for over $1000 on eBay. Some suggest "there is gold in them thar hills" [tho we are speaking of existing ocean sites]. They are not interested in the human remains. I am.

I am not going to publish a treasure map, nor comment on sites, current or not... until the proper authorities complete their work.
Yes, I know the crash locations of ALL US and Japanese aircraft. Yes, I know ALL Japanese crash sites "by carrier". Yes, I know ALL BUT SEVEN crash sites by crew. I must talk about my research, but not in the detail sought by Mr Lansdale, who expressed two years ago on this board that he was standing by with "salvors" ready to claim salvage rights.

Many only want my sources, as Mr Lansdale seems to have made it a crusade: "Many ...have asked, as I have repeatedly, for citations or evidence.", but these will be footnotes in the book upon termination of proper recoverys... I must recoup SOME of the expenses for such meticulous work... this IS now my occupation, not a side line.

Mr Lansdale suggests, "you have written statements which border on riddles and/or profess veiled prophecies"... He references my statements that the Egusa VAL markings were in error and that we should await research which I could not reveal... I treasure other researcher's work which has been my priviledge to view or comment prior to publication. They trust me to keep their hard won work quiet. However, I have had some of my own hard won research, which I shared... only to have it published without my okay. "Burn me once,..." That VAL research was made public in SCALE AVIATION issue #18.

While I support the "spirit of education", there are higher priorities... including correct identification of the deceased in crash sites recovered in 1941.
Yes, the Makino cited in the postings was living and flying AFTER the particular photographed crash occurred. "Negative information" accounts for information as any police detective or codebreaker will tell you.
There is a LOT more to the project... Thank you for your patience.
Cheers, David Aiken student of 7 Dec 1941

Re: Requiescant In Pace! *PIC*

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: Requiescant In Pace! *PIC*> Date: Wednesday, 20 June 2001, at 10:17 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Be careful of releasing data before it is time (David_Aiken)

Aloha Shinjuwan Sakusen Sensei David
You write, "Mr Lansdale, ... expressed two years ago on this board that he was standing by with 'salvors' ready to claim salvage rights."
David! I surely don't recall putting that subject exactly in that manner. I recall that I posted information that a Hawaiian corespondent had told me about a project to search the Kaneohe Bay area for the reported crash site of a Japanese aircraft (it may have been one of BALLARD's projects, see link below). There was also another project involving the search in a mountainous area of Oahu for the remains of a Zero (which, I think, turned out to actually be a crashed USAAC fighter!).
I was later told that the wreckage in Kaneohe Bay had been photographed and that the aircraft had a "red circle" on the wing (or something to that effect). The last I heard about that project was that this wreckage turned out to be a USN aircraft and the "red circle" was the remains of the pre-war US national marking. I believe, but I am uncertain, that this project was conducted by the National Geographic Society or a research group they sponsored ... hardly an organization which one would call "salvors" by your definition.

Further you write, "Yes, I know the crash locations of ALL US and Japanese aircraft. Yes, I know ALL Japanese crash sites 'by carrier'. Yes, I know ALL BUT SEVEN crash sites by crew."

Hopefully the remains of the MIA pilots and crew, whose locations are known but to you, will be made available to their families for proper disposition. I also hope that the results of your labor and research will be published soon so that we will all have a better idea of what really happened above Pearl on 7 December 1941.
Thank you for the update on your research and please continue to keep us posted.

FWIW
Jim Lansdale

Re: Which Makino? The Burden of Proof *PIC*

Posted By: John Egger <mailto:rph120741@webtv.net?subject=Re: Which Makino? The Burden of Proof *PIC*> Date: Tuesday, 19 June 2001, at 9:03 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Which Makino? (David_Aiken)

Jim,
While we have never met or spoken I would like to respond to several of the emails regarding the ID of Lt. MAKINO's aircraft. I want the record to be perfectly clear regarding this matter and the chain of events. I am proud of my association with Todd PEDERSON on this project and what we have accomplished. This effort began over 2 years ago when I came into possession with parts of the aircraft & the letter from the person who recovered them on the day of the attack at Pearl Harbor.

I began my research by contacting those who would be considered knowledgeable, if not expert, in this area. It may not surprise you by the number of "experts" who, once given the information, offered nothing in return. As a collector of over 25 years I understand how some play the game and that the information super highway is sometimes a one way street. As a 21 year police officer & homicide detective I have learned not to get discouraged by barriers that others erect.

Daniel MARTINEZ of the ARIZONA Memorial in Hawaii was helpful in confirming that a "Val" dive bomber had crashed & burned on the AIEA Plantation but due to the condition of the aircraft, the crew & the plane were never identified. For the past year I have been at a dead end accepting what was reportly known as fact. Several months ago I approached Todd PEDERSON & asked for help. "Be careful what you ask for, you may get it". Todd sent me to school & I learned more about a Val than I ever wanted to know. We went over the schematics of the Val, charts of aircraft markings. And page after page in English & Japanese of aircraft identifications that took part in the Pearl Harbor operation. Once he was satisfied that I knew enough to understand what he was talking about he began to examine several of the known photos of the AIEA site.

Almost immediately he discovered markings that identified this aircraft as being from the KAGA. Believing that there were other markings present on the wreckage we would need better photos to examine. The Hawaiian Archives was contacted & copies of the photos from the original negatives were ordered. We waited 2 weeks for their arrival and the wait was well worth it. The identifiable markings were and are there. Todd found what everyone else had missed for 60 years. He found it because he understood the aircraft & he let the wreckage tell it's story. When it appeared that we might have truly discovered the identity of the AIEA Val the only condition that was set was that no information would be released until we all were satisfied & agreed on the findings. Again we waited several weeks until Todd could fly east & we could sit down with the photos & records. It was then & only then that the information was released.

Regards & thank you,
John Egger

Re: Which Makino? The Burden of Proof

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: Which Makino? The Burden of Proof> Date: Wednesday, 20 June 2001, at 3:51 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Which Makino? The Burden of Proof *PIC* (John Egger)

Hello John
Thank you for the lucid account of the investigative process you and Todd PEDERSON used to come to your conclusion that the AIEA Plantation Val crash site was that of Hikokitaicho Lt. Saburo MAKINO's dive bomber from the KAGA [AII-240] on 7 December 1941.

You wrote that you are a twenty-one year veteran "police officer & homicide detective." I am sure that you brought this forensic experience to bear during your investigation of the evidence you and Todd have presented.

I believe that you and Todd have made a significant contribution to our knowledge of the events on 7 December 1941 over Pearl.
While I truly appreciate your frustration at not being able to demonstrate beyond ALL doubt that the sixty year-old mystery has been solved, your evidence is most convincing and compelling.

In the event, there is NO OTHER evidence which has been presented to date contrary to your findings other than unsubstantiated statements.
Again, thank you and Todd for your fine work and particularly for sharing this material with the membership on this message board at J-A Dot Com.

Sincerely
Jim Lansdale

Re: Which Makino? *PIC*

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: Which Makino? *PIC*> Date: Tuesday, 19 June 2001, at 5:53 a.m.

In Response To: Which Makino? (Jim Broshot)

Hi Jim
Peter SMITH was referring to the correct Lt. Saburo MAKINO.
Todd PEDERSON and his associates have investigated this crash site and they have very credible evidence that the Val which went down in the Macadamia nut grove during the attack on Pearl Harbor was that of Lt. Saburo MAKINO and his observer, FPO Sueo SUKIDA, from the KAGA dive bomber unit.
LT. MAKINO was the No.1 Chutai/Buntai-cho flying the lead aircraft in this unit and also acted as the No.21 Shotai-cho. Pearl Harbor Makino Val: Update (I)

*PIC*

Posted By: Todd A. Pederson <mailto:sentek@earthlink.net?subject=Pearl Harbor Makino Val: Update (I) *PIC*> Date: Saturday, 1 September 2001, at 5:44 a.m.

First and foremost we want to thank everyone who has emailed us with questions, comments, and suggestions about the Makino crash site and the identification of Aichi D3A1 [AII-240] which crashed during the Pearl Harbor attack on 7 December 1941. Since our last article, there has been noteworthy progress in our search. We want to update everyone on the latest findings and to address one unresolved issue.

We have had some excellent results with the identification of those whom appear in the Hawaiian Archive photographs. We know that the photos were taken under military authority. Of the three existing photos of the Aiea crash site, they all appear to have been staged for public consumption rather than military value. Probably, for security reasons the exact location was not identified. Two men are named viewing the wreckage in the most published photo: Sam Tooney (see photo below at left) and Ken Carney.

The Honolulu Plantation Co. at Aiea employed Tooney as a supervisor in 1941. He worked and lived in company housing on the plantation. Carney was employed by a local radio station and lived at 2034 Makiki on Oahu. We have reason to believe that additional photographs were taken of the site and have several leads on their location. If found, they could provide even more conclusive proof as to the identification of the aircraft. This will allow us all to move past the debate stage. A search through local records has also identified the family of the 9-year-old boy who recovered the parts from the crash site (that are now in our possession). He later wrote the letter that describes the crash of the plane behind his house. We have verified that in 1941 the family lived in a company house on the Aiea Plantation and that his father was a foreman in the "Boil Down Shop

Pearl Harbor Makino Val: Update (II) *PIC*

Posted By: Todd A. Pederson <mailto:sentek@earthlink.net?subject=Pearl Harbor Makino Val: Update (II) *PIC*> Date: Saturday, 1 September 2001, at 5:47 a.m.

Over the past month or more we have submitted our findings (along with documentation and copies of the photos) to a number of independent experts on Japanese aircraft. All have agreed with our conclusions that everything indicates that this site is that of Lt. Makino's aircraft. Our next step was make contact with the Japanese Government. Jim Lansdale supplied us with the name of a gentleman in Japan. He has spent many years locating, identifying, and returning remains of missing Japanese military personnel to their families. Several emails were exchanged in which we answered his many questions. All of this was done before copies of our research & photos were sent to him. Once he became convinced, he contacted the appropriate government official who also examined our research. He came to the same conclusion. The Japanese Government then sent us a letter confirming our identification of Lt. Makino's plane. We have enclosed a copy of that letter (see below). The next step of locating the remains has proven a bit more difficult but still possible.
Japanese records have offered very little information. While we have not yet located the remains, we have some very interesting information. We believe that we may know what happened to them and where they are. We have also located the family of Lt. Makino. His wife and son are alive and in Japan. There have been exchanges with Mr. Makino and he is aware of what information we have. His son is very excited about the prospect of knowing what happened to his father. We have had some success in locating the family of W.O. Sukida (Makino's crewman) but we have not made direct contact as of yet. There have been some preliminary discussions of a meeting with Mr. Makino later this year and returning a piece of his father's aircraft to him. However, locating the remains is the top priority before any other plans can be made.

Lt. Cdr. Tadashi Kaneko

Posted By: Jim Obermeyer <mailto:slickobe@aol.com?subject=Lt. Cdr. Tadashi Kaneko> Date: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 5:50 p.m.

I am building my PH series of aircraft(Zero,Val,& Kate)and I need info on my Zero tailcode EI-101 flown by Lt. Cdr. Kaneko from the carrier Shokaku. Can anyone supply any pics of him or his aircraft or any info about him? Seems to be one of those obscure subjects of an Aeromaster decal sheet. TIA

Re: Lt. Cdr. Tadashi Kaneko *PIC*

Posted By: UCHIDA, Katsuhiro <mailto:2000gt-b@mui.biglobe.ne.jp?subject=Re: Lt. Cdr. Tadashi Kaneko *PIC*> Date: Thursday, 17 May 2001, at 8:09 a.m.

In Response To: Lt. Cdr. Tadashi Kaneko (Jim Obermeyer)

Photo: KANEKO, Tadashi (date unknown)
Source: "Reisen Saigo no Shogen II" by KOHDACHI, Naoki (Kojinsha)
Kaneko (Etajima 60th graduation class) was aboard on AKAGI as the Hiko-taicho of 6 ku at Midway. He was assgned as the Hiko-taicho of HIYO during Guadalcanal campaign. Maybe some one can post more information about him.

Regards, Katsuhiro

Re: Lt. Cdr. Tadashi Kaneko

Posted By: John Lundstrom <mailto:jl@mpm.edu?subject=Re: Lt. Cdr. Tadashi Kaneko> Date: Thursday, 17 May 2001, at 8:19 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Lt. Cdr. Tadashi Kaneko *PIC* (UCHIDA, Katsuhiro)

Lt,Cdr. Kaneko was shot down by a VB-10 SBD on the afternoon of 14 November 1942 while leading 6 Hiyo Zeros on a patrol from Buin to protect the Japanese convoy bound for Guadalcanal. For details of the action, see First Team and the Guadalcanal, pp. 506-508.

Pearl Harbor Zero fuselage stripes and tail mrkngs

Posted By: Larry Martinez <mailto:saginaw1@swbell.net?subject=Pearl Harbor Zero fuselage stripes and tail mrkngs> Date: Thursday, 7 June 2001, at 10:07 a.m.

Hello. I would please like to know if anyone on this forum has any information on the Zeros at Pearl Harbor? What I'm looking for in particular are the fuselage striping and tail code markings that corresponded with which carriers they came from. Thank you in advance for your time and help.

Re: Pearl Harbor Zero fuselage stripes and tail mr

Posted By: Scott L. Scarborough <mailto:RoninKaro@juno.com?subject=Re: Pearl Harbor Zero fuselage stripes and tail mr> Date: Thursday, 7 June 2001, at 10:45 a.m.

In Response To: Pearl Harbor Zero fuselage stripes and tail mrkngs (Larry Martinez)

Larry, fuselage band and tail markings as follows: Akagi had one red band, tail code AI-XXX. Kaga had two red bands, tail code AII-XXX. Soryu had one blue band, tail code BI-XXX. Hiryu had two blue bands, tail code BII-XXX. Shokaku, one white band, tail code EI-XXX. Zuikaku, two white bands, tail code EII-XXX. Note that on many zeros the band did not go completely around the fuselage but stopped short at where the belly began. Also for Group Leader, there were two wide bands above and parallel to the tail code with a narrow band below the tail code. Squadron Leader had one wide band above tail code, one narrow below. Section Leader just a wide band above the tail code. Colors varied.

Re: Pearl Harbor Zero fuselage stripes and tail mr

Posted By: Scott L. Scarborough <mailto:RoninKaro@juno.com?subject=Re: Pearl Harbor Zero fuselage stripes and tail mr> Date: Thursday, 7 June 2001, at 10:58 a.m.

In Response To: (Larry Martinez)

Oh, forgot, tail code colors were red.

Need information about PH Kates

Posted By: Mike Yeo <mailto:mikeyeo@bigpond.com?subject=Need information about PH Kates> Date: Friday, 29 June 2001, at 7:55 a.m.

I'm looking for information about the following 2 Kates during Pearl Harbour. Specifically, which attack wave did the aircraft fly in, what was its assigned target and what armament was carried by the individual aircraft and did it return safely to its carrier.

1) AII-316 from Kaga (Buntaicho stripes) P: Lt Mikami O: NAP 1/C Ishihara T: NAP 3/C Iimori
2) EI-321 from Sokakau (Buntaicho stripes) P: NAP 1/C Ishikawa O: Lt Hagiwara T: NAP 2/C Sagara

Any information appreciated
Mike

Re: Need information about PH Kates

Posted By: Emmanuel <mailto:aecastro1@aol.com?subject=Re: Need information about PH Kates> Date: Friday, 29 June 2001, at 6:00 p.m.

In Response To: Need information about PH Kates (Mike Yeo)

Hi,
Lt. MIKAMI of KAGA BUNTAICHO he was in the 1st Wave he did survived. He carried the 250 kg bomb on the Horizontal Bombing Unit. Target to destroy Battleship Row
Lt. HAGIWARA of SHOKAKU BUNTAICHO he was in the 2nd Wave he did survived. He carried the 250 kg bomb with two 60 kg bomb on the Horizontal Bombing Unit Target to destroy Hickam Field

Hope this helps, Emmanuel

Re: Need information about PH Kates

Posted By: Mike Yeo <mailto:mikeyeo@bigpond.com?subject=Re: Need information about PH Kates> Date: Friday, 29 June 2001, at 7:00 p.m.

In Response To: (Emmanuel)

Emmanuel,
thanks! You mentioned of Lt Mikami;
"He carried the 250 kg bomb on the Horizontal Bombing Unit Target to destroy Battleship Row"
But weren't the Kates against Battleship Row armed with the 800kg AP bombs?

Mike

Egusa's D3A1 @ Pearl harbor

Posted By: John Wong <mailto:birdie@pathcom.com?subject=Egusa's D3A1 @ Pearl harbor>
Date: Tuesday, 2 July 2002, at 6:46 p.m.

Anyone have information on the career/fate of Lt. Cdr. Takashige Egusa and his D3A1 aircraft (BI-231) that was used at Pearl Harbor ? I have indications that he was involved in the Midway operation -- any information on the aircraft he was flying by that time, IF he was still flying ? Did he survive Midway ? Similarly, did his Pearl Harbor aircraft survive through to Midway ?

Any information would be much appreciated. I'm building an Airfix D3A kit and want to do that colourful scheme. Yeah, I know . . WHY the Airfix kit when I can do the Fujimi 1/72 kit instead . . . . something about being a glutton for punishment, and someone in the club challenged me on what Airfix am I building next . . . . . .

thanx much in advance.

Cheers . . .

John Wong
IPMS Toronto

Re: Egusa's D3A1 @ Pearl harbor

Posted By: Roger Horky <mailto:rhorky@trinity.edu?subject=Re: Egusa's D3A1 @ Pearl harbor>
Date: Wednesday, 3 July 2002, at 2:13 p.m.

In Response To: Egusa's D3A1 @ Pearl harbor (John Wong)

There's a brief one-page biography of Egusa in Peter C. Smith's AICHI D3A1/2 VAL (crowood press), IIRC

Egusa's D3A -- the Flame scheme

Posted By: John Wong <mailto:birdie@pathcom.com?subject=Egusa's D3A -- the Flame scheme> Date: Wednesday, 3 July 2002, at 11:38 a.m.

Just curious and fishing for more info if it exists -- does anyone actually have a photo of Egusa's D3A in the flame scheme (red & yellow tail) -- tail number BI-231 from the Soryu ?
Thanx again for all the quick answers !
Regards, John

Re: "Tora Moyo" & "Jaja Uma"

Posted By: David Aiken <mailto:David_Aiken@hotmail.com?subject=Re: 'Tora Moyo' & 'Jaja Uma'> Date: Wednesday, 3 July 2002, at 7:53 p.m.

In Response To: Egusa's D3A -- the Flame scheme (John Wong)

Aloha All, Lt. Cdr. Egusa had two different aircraft which were garishly painted. One of these was "Tora Moyo". The other aircraft was "Jaja Uma". At Pearl he flew "Jaja Uma" and, in French Indochina, he flew "Tora Moyo".
Of interest, Takahashi's plane was called "Dora Neko".
By keeping the blinders attached one could easily say "Camo Scheme for the Unwary". Cheers, David Aiken

Re: "Tora Moyo" & "Jaja Uma"

Posted By: Rob Graham - the ReiShikiSenGuy Date: Thursday, 4 July 2002, at 9:08 a.m.

In Response To: Re: "Tora Moyo" & "Jaja Uma" (David Aiken)

David:
I haven't seen a whole lot about these schemes that could convince me one way or another, but it is intriguing!
One of the things I am curious about involves the witnesses. If these schemes were reported by witnesses, how many witnesses were there? Do their stories agree?
It would sure be nice to get into a time machine and go see these - except that being an American with a Sony Mavica camera on a Japanese carrier in 1941 or '42, just hours before a critical offensive, might raise more than a few eyebrows among the ship's crew. I would imagine I'd find out some of the information, but I wouldn't make it back to tell anyone! So maybe it wouldn't be that nice.
Anyhow... I think that if there's a number of people who saw these schemes, we'd have some consensus among the stories. If only one source said this, though, I'd have to remain a bit, uhh, "open to futher input." I can imagine not a lot of these people are still around to tell.
On a different subject, though not completely off the path... I am still surprised by the A6M2-K twists and turns that had happened for a while. That orange color, then - NO! - it was gray! - then the eyewitness accounts of several veterans seem to have said it was orange. Now, I think relic samples of other trainers show it to be less tangerine and more of a yellow-orange, muted slightly with a grayish hint, but it is a pale and dingy orange. Funny how the research goes.
Thanks, --Rob

Re: "Tora Moyo" & "Jaja Uma"

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: 'Tora Moyo' & 'Jaja Uma'> Date: Thursday, 4 July 2002, at 7:41 a.m.

In Response To: Re: "Tora Moyo" & "Jaja Uma" (David Aiken)

Thank you David
Most researchers in the field of IJNAF camouflage and markings (esoteric as this area of research is (;>) are well aware of the claims made regarding the EGUSA Val colors and markings. There are purported interviews with witnesses to these schemes, but to date, NO photos of same.
What is in particular question regarding the EGUSA scheme are his Pearl Harbor Val colors and markings.
Having worked, as you have also, with many veterans and their recollections, it is not uncommon for them to have blurred memories regarding some (at the time) unimportant details. Often, I have found, the precise dates regarding when a veteran flew certain aircraft and the exact markings on the aircraft get a bit muddled! Noting these details did not take great precedence at the time.
For this reason, photographs and other documentary evidence (contemporary combat reports, Form 5's, etc), not just eye witness accounts made many years after the fact, are used to corroborate such marking details.
Photographic evidence of aircraft used in the attack on Pearl Harbor substantiates that the Kates had varying states of top surface camouflage. However, the Vals and Zeros were in a single overall light-colored finish. Of course I am not saying it was not possible for an isolated aircraft to have a "garish" finish or be in an anomalous scheme, but it is not highly probable. IJNAF schemes are well-documented to have been the antithesis of the flamboyant schemes found on the aircraft of the IJAAF.
I am one of the proverbial "doubting Thomases" and prefer not to accept all that is preached on faith alone, when it comes to separating historical facts from fiction. I prefer analytical reasoning supported on some substantive foundation of documented facts. The stronger and broader the foundation, the greater is the likelihood of an assertion.
For now, I have filed the EGUSA color schemes and markings in the "we just don't know for certain" category and I believe they are still very speculative. Others may prefer to accept such schemes as the gospel truth, but I do not.
FWIW
Jim Lansdale

Re:"Yellow Zeros" etc at Pearl Harbor

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re:'Yellow Zeros' etc at Pearl Harbor> Date: Thursday, 4 July 2002, at 10:28 a.m.

In Response To: Re: "Tora Moyo" & "Jaja Uma" (Grant Goodale)

Hi Grant
You wrote that statements given by, "US Hawaii veterans ... (contain) a few reports of 'yellow Zeros'."
I agree, in the heat of battle, any "flash" or "quick observation" could account for anything! Certainly there were enough "yellow" markings and command stripes on Japanese aircraft to account for the reports of "yellow Zeros" or other "yellow " aircraft.
I have also heard the "grey-poupon" scheme, as documented and reported by David AIKEN for the Coral Sea Kate [EI-306], could be easily mistaken for "mustard" or a "yellow" color. Particularly when viewed in the early morning light at Pearl Harbor when the sunlight was rich in yellows, oranges, and reds (much as it is in late afternoon).
The only time to have gotten a true color perspective or hue would have been if the observations had been made near the sun's zenith (near meridian, one hour before/after noon).
FWIW
Jim Lansdale

Re: Egusa's D3A -- the Flame scheme

Posted By: Grant Goodale <mailto:grant.goodale@sympatico.ca?subject=Re: Egusa's D3A -- the Flame scheme> Date: Wednesday, 3 July 2002, at 12:59 p.m.

In Response To: Egusa's D3A -- the Flame scheme (John Wong)

John -
The only phot that I have ever seen is the photo of a model in Scale Aviation. To the best of my knowledge, this was based on eyewitness accounts and that no photos of the real bird in this plumage exist.
FWIW
- Grant

Re: Egusa's Val Scheme: History & Art

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: Egusa's Val Scheme: History & Art> Date: Thursday, 4 July 2002, at 1:07 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Egusa's D3A -- the Flame scheme (John Wong)

Hi John
Please model your EGUSA Val with the best information available. I am sure you will do an excellent job!
When we (historians) get into esoteric debates, it is of little consequence to the skill and artistry the modeller brings to his craft!
My problem, as a young modeller in the 40's and 50's, was that I wished to render accurate markings and schemes with my models. I got so hung-up on the research that I switched my interests from modelling to historical research.
I never attained half of the skill level in my modelling efforts most of the members of the J-A Dot Com fraternity have reached.
What is most important is that you give a project your best effort with the information available. The results will speak for themselves and NO ONE who has done his homework may criticize the results!
The EGUSA Val scheme may be controversial on this MB (between the historians (;>), but it is for this reason that your interpretation is no more nor less valid than another aficionado of this art form!
Keep on trucking! (:>)
FWIW
Jim Lansdale

Newbie Q: Egusa "Flame Scheme"?

Posted By: Keith C Vreeland <mailto:voices37@aol.com?subject=Newbie Q: Egusa 'Flame Scheme'?> Date: Thursday, 4 July 2002, at 7:19 p.m.

Okay, so am I to understand that the striking dark green/ yellow stripe/red tail Val is just another speculation?

Books and Decals *PIC*

Posted By: Sean G. <mailto:aseang@hotmail.com?subject=Books and Decals *PIC*> Date: Friday, 5 July 2002, at 11:17 p.m.

In Response To: Newbie Q: Egusa "Flame Scheme"? (Keith C Vreeland)

As Dave says, Yep.
You are going to see some publications like SAM's Combat Colors #4: Pearl Harbor and Beyond play it safe and present both camos.
Decal set-wise, the still available Aeromaster "Tora, Tora, Tora" decal set carries Egusa's Val in the dark green/gray camo while decal sheet included in the Cores & Marcas book "Ataque A Pearl Harbour" carries the decals for the overall ame-iro/flame interpretation.
So we're back at square one and the answer is: Build it as you like. One detail that is verified, no wing bombs for a Pearl Harbor Raider.
Cheers!

Painting the Pearl Planes

Posted By: Andrew Monroe <mailto:monroah@auburn.edu?subject=Painting the Pearl Planes> Date: Saturday, 26 January 2002, at 9:04 a.m.

I assume that when the Zeros, Vals, and Kates, that were headed for Pearl Harbor, rolled off the assembly line, they already had their base coat of paint. When, however, would the tail markings, the fusalage stripes, and any other special paint jobs (i.e. painting the leader of a squadrons plane a bright red, etc.) have taken place? On the aircraft carrier?
Thank you for your answers in advance Andrew

Re: Painting the Pearl Planes

Posted By: Grant Goodale <mailto:grant.goodale@sympatico.ca?subject=Re: Painting the Pearl Planes> Date: Saturday, 26 January 2002, at 10:06 a.m.

In Response To: Painting the Pearl Planes (Andrew Monroe)

Andrew -
The Zeros were fresh from the factory and their identification markings would probably have been applied on the carrier or at some shore depot. However, the Kates and Vals were already in service aboard the carriers and their identification markings would have already been applied.
A possible caveat to that statement may be some of the B5N2s. Prior to the Hawaii operation, some carriers had a mixed compliment of B5N1 and B5N2. On the six carriers, all of the B5N1s were sent to other units and B5N2s replaced them.

HTH
- Grant

Re: Painting the Pearl Planes

Posted By: Steve Horn <mailto:stevehorn55@hotmail.com?subject=Re: Painting the Pearl Planes> Date: Saturday, 26 January 2002, at 11:58 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Painting the Pearl Planes (Grant Goodale)

Grant, Somewhere I read that the B5N1s were used as the level bombers for the PH attack and the B5N2s were the torpedo planes. What source would tell for sure?

Steve Horn

Re: Still a good question

Posted By: François P. WEILL <mailto:frpawe@wanadoo.fr?subject=Re: Still a good question> Date: Sunday, 27 January 2002, at 12:18 p.m.

In Response To: Still a good question (Graham Boak)

Hi Graham and others,
If the camouflage of Pearl Kates is still a much debated topic, all the information hitherto published on the use of B5N1 Type 97 Model 1 torpedo-level bombers at Pearl are FALSE and were never substantiated by any picture or contemporary documents... It happens the same to the torpedo bomber units as to the fighter units engaged there. If the 96 Kansen was still used by combat units as a fighter on Dec. 7 1941 (and even thereafter) the First Fleet carriers were all equipped with the Zero.
The B5N1's were kept only within reserve force as combat planes and not a single one was used by the first line carrier force (1st, 2nd and 5th Car. Div.).
Small carriers kept them and even used them in the Aleutian Islands in June 1942 as demonstrated by a picture recently published on this board.
This was probably their last appearance as regular combat planes and thereafter they went to training Ku.'s. Only to be used at the end of the conflict as kamaikaze mounts.

Friendly.
François

Early Retirement?

Posted By: richard dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Early Retirement?> Date: Sunday, 27 January 2002, at 1:48 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Still a good question (François P. WEILL)

Francois
I'm not so sure about such an early retirement date (June 42) for the B5N1. In addition to being the attack plane on Zuiho in Dec 41 the B5N1 still equipped a number of home-based air units. I'm not referring to training units but to operational air units subordinate to Naval Stations and Guard Districts. The other interesting point is that the Mitsubishi carrier attack plane (B5M1) was in operational service in China at the outbreak of the Pacific War. Four served with the Hainan Air Group under the Third China Fleet and eight others with the Shanghai Air Group under the China Theater Fleet.
There is reason to believe that the B5M1 was still in operational service on June 23, 1943 when a Japanese plane rammed and destroyed a B-24 in the Netherlands East Indies. The Japanese report describes this a "carrier attack plane" and the Americans described it as a "Nate." Putting the two reports together you get a carrier attack pane with fixed landing gear. Ergo, a B5M1. It was assigned to the 932 Ku.
If B5M1s were still operational in 1943 why not B5N1s? When 254 Ku was established it had 4 carrier attack planes assigned. These may well have been B5N1s or possibly even B5M1s left over from the old Hainan AG. Same with 256 Ku.
Nothing conclusive I realize but food for thought.

Rick

Re: Early Retirement?

Posted By: François P. WEILL <mailto:frpawe@wanadoo.fr?subject=Re: Early Retirement?> Date: Tuesday, 29 January 2002, at 1:53 p.m.

In Response To: Early Retirement? (richard dunn)

Dear Rick,
Happy New Year.
First I must apologize for this late answer, I had a major problem with my computer lately that ended to be a hard disk failure... Everything seems to be OK now...
You wrote:
>> I'm not so sure about such an early retirement date (June 42) for the B5N1. In addition to being the attack plane on Zuiho in Dec 41 the B5N1 still equipped a number of home-based air units. I'm not referring to training units but to operational air units subordinate to Naval Stations and Guard Districts. <<
Agreed 100%! I didn't use the right terminology. In fact I was thinking about regular carrier air group use and a regular Torpeo-Level bombing unit use. I'm sure some coastal defense Kokutais and some "utility" Kokutais used them later and not as trainers. In fact I meant first line units, both carrier born and land based. The Ryujo too was still equipped with them when engaged in the Pillipines (with A5M4 fighters by the way). But for the carrier Divisions engaged at Pearl I'm formal, not a single one was in the inventory.
>> The other interesting point is that the Mitsubishi carrier attack plane (B5M1) was in operational service in China at the outbreak of the Pacific War. Four served with the Hainan Air Group under the Third China Fleet and eight others with the Shanghai Air Group under the China Theater Fleet. <<
I think we can also mention the 35th Kû based at Surabaya in Java in 1942 and using them in company with Aichi Type 99 Model 11 dive bombers. But all these units were secondary ones and most used a mixed bag of aircraft.
>> There is reason to believe that the B5M1 was still in operational service on June 23, 1943 when a Japanese plane rammed and destroyed a B-24 in the Netherlands East Indies. The Japanese report describes this a "carrier attack plane" and the Americans described it as a "Nate." Putting the two reports together you get a carrier attack pane with fixed landing gear. Ergo, a B5M1. It was assigned to the 932 Ku. <<
I'm not very much surprised by this fact. But if I agree with you with the use in non training units of the B5N1 and the B5M1 after June 42 - though second line ones - I don't see any reason in this apparently late use of a B5M1 to justify the assumption the B5N1 was used in first line combat outfits after June 42 (and to what extent could we consider the carriers participating to the Aleutian Island campaign as first line ones, even in June 42?) as you will see later in my answer...
>> If B5M1s were still operational in 1943 why not B5N1s? When 254 Ku was established it had 4 carrier attack planes assigned. These may well have been B5N1s or possibly even B5M1s left over from the old Hainan AG. Same with 256 Ku.<<
My guess is there is much more chance the B5M1's survived the B5N1's in secondary units than the contrary and this is why:
1 - The B5M1 was never assigned to first line units and in fact only produced as a back up to the B5N1 in case the then new model, incorporating at once a great number of innovative features should fail to perform correctly. When the B5N1 demonstrated its potential, the orders for the B5M1 were curtailed and all the frontline units in China used the Nakajima bird (as long as air supremacy was not achieved). Hence, the B5N1's were used early in combat in China and equipped the carrier groups with a high priority (never heard of a carrier air group using the Mitsubishi B5M1 on a regular basis).
2 - This means the B5N1's were more submitted to wear and tear, more exposed to the casulaties (both in combat and as operational losses)had much more occasion to use "full military power" with the associated wear of the engine and radical manoeuvers, not so good for the airframe. So the airworthy planes, even if still more numerous than the B5M1's after June 42, were certainly more "war weary" and probably not as suited for operational tasks than the B5M1's retaining a better potential. But this is not the main reason why I believe their time was more limited in operational units. A fair number of them was converted to B5N1-K standard with a second set of commands for training purpose (Unfortunately I don't know how many and the percentage of the survivors which were so converted) and there was a great technical interest in using them in training units instead of using the B5M1's: they were almost identical (but the engine and its maximum power output)to the planes the crews were deemed to operate operationally! ...
Now, I disagree entirely with your title... To qualify of EARLY, analyzing the contemporary practices, the retirement from (actually first line) operational units of a plane variant after 4 years of service is IMHO somewhat an abuse :-))... How long did the TBF/TBM-1 (I don't include the - 1C or -1D variants)was the main first line torpedo level bomber in the USN ? Its first appearance was during Midway, in June 42, and it began to be replaced on the big carrier decks and in frontline units by the -1C late in 1943 ! A mere 1 year and a half after entering service... The B5N1's enterd operational service as frontline aircraft in 1938, in China. They left the carrier decks (and then second line carrier decks) about June 42 (after operation Al.)... So even had they been retired from all combat units (even utility and coastal units) at this time this would not have been an "early retirement". Remember too, after Aichi doubled Nakajima as a producer of the B5N2, there was no shortage of the new version of the "Kate" and no reason to use the early variant any more in the first line combat units. Moreover the extensive switching between units before Pearl to provide the Rengo Kantai Car Div 1,2 and 5 entirely with B5N2's (and by the way their fighter force with Zeros) proves quite well the B5N1's were already considered obsolescent in Dec. 41 !!! ... The 1942 situation for the IJNAF was in no way comparable to what prevailed later (after Midway as far as the carriers were concerned and after the long attrition battle fought in the Solomon Islands for the crews and the airplanes). If many units, less exposed to direct contact with the enemy or expecting feeble resistance were still equiped with the 96 Kansen, it was only because the Zero production volume was insufficient, but care was taken to equip the spearhead of the fleet with the best aircraft available.
Another interesting point this discussion makes me think about is the reason why, much later - in 1944 - during the "Marianas Turkey shoot", the B5N2 was still in first line service. Was it a question related to an eventual shortage of the much newer and up to date B6N ?? ... And even at this late date, the answer is... No !
The reason why these planes were still used is linked to the fact the many small sized carriers the IJN could muster for this last all out effort were unable to launch the new aircraft, their decks being too short (no catapult was ever used by a Japanese carrier). The Japanese were never able to compensate for the loss of big fleet carriers at Midway.
In fact the only time in WW 2 I found an unexplainable mystery about the use of an obsolescent plane in first line units by the IJNAF is one of the most intringuing (to me at least) fact in the Zerto story. Why after having at hand the perfectly sea worthy Model 22 the IJNAF didn't ordered Nakajima to switch to this variant instead of keeping into production the now ageing Model 21 ? I can understand the reluctance to use Model 32 on carrier decks (though we knew from this very board it was in fact used during the Battle of Santa Cruz): it has much "shorter legs" and higher landing speed than Model 21 but I consider unexplainable (and to a certain extent unbelievable) Nakajima kept Model 21 in production as late as Feb. 44 with Mitsubishi producing the Model 22 since Dec 1942...
Finally, another small Mystery concerning Midway you might be able to answer.
It is known the Hosho made its last appearance in a fleet combat unit as an escort carrier for Yamamoto's battleship group. It is also known the Hosho had no fighter aboard and that her planes were dispatched on the battle scene the day after the disaster for reconnaissance purpose.
The French Historian Bernard MILLOT in his book about the battle wrote that the Hosho air group was composed of old D1A2 Dive Bombers. He might be right considering the role assigned to this carrier and the all out effort made both for operation Mi and operation Al at this time, but I would like to have a confirmation.

Friendly
François

Re: Early Retirement?

Posted By: richard dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Re: Early Retirement?> Date: Tuesday, 29 January 2002, at 5:05 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Early Retirement? (François P. WEILL)

Francois
You have out-winded me with your answer. I won't try to debate. I'll suggest two reasons for your mystery about why Nakajima produced the Mark 1 Zero until March 1944.
First, Mitsubishi introduced three sub-types June 1942 to August 1943. Each change had a negative effect on production. Nakajima just kept grinding out the model 21 with only minor changes. Below about 20,000 feet the Zero 21 had about the same performance as the later versions. I see no evidence in intercepted radio messages of pressure from the front for later versions until the second half of 1943. After that date several units training for front line service request re-equipment prior to going into action. Units in action in late 1943 and early 1944 request that replacement aircraft be model 52s.
Second, shortage of Sakae 21 to equipe a Nakajima Mark2 Zero. I don't have figures to prove this but I suspect it is a cause.
I brought up the B5M1 in my previous message in large measure just to remind folks that there was such an aircraft!

Regards,
Rick

Re: Early Retirement?

Posted By: Mike Goodwin <mailto:Mike.Goodwin@iname.com?subject=Re: Early Retirement?> Date: Tuesday, 29 January 2002, at 2:15 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Early Retirement? (François P. WEILL)

Another reason that the B5M1 might have outlived the B5N1 was that it had a much newer engine. I believe that the Hikari engine in the B5N1 was put out of production by 1939, whereas the Kinsei engine in the B5M1 was in production (hence had a service infrastructure) till the end of the war.

Cheers,
Mike
Pearl Harbor Kate Wing-Markings *PIC*

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Pearl Harbor Kate Wing-Markings *PIC*> Date: Sunday, 10 February 2002, at 8:04 a.m.

Todd PEDERSON has recently received some previously archived Pearl Harbor crash investigation reports, photographs, and drawings. Several Val and Kate markings and serial numbers are revealed therein. Todd is in the process of writing a report to be published in the J-A DotCom Research Article section.
One of the set of drawings contained in these reports is the top surface view of one of the Nakajima B5N2 Kates recovered. While only approximately accurate in planform (note the "assumed" twin nose m/gs!), this drawing (see below) reveals some interesting markings details.

Along the leading edge of the Kate wings were small (white ?) diagonal stripes used by the crew for azimuth bearings. These were located at angles as follows (O degrees being perpendicular to the fuselage, as viewed from the cockpit, along the chord of the wings). The outermost l/e stripe was at 15o (marked white "12"); followed by 17o (marked "10"); 19o (marked "8"); 21o (marked "6"); and 30o (marked with the number "4"). These numbers were oriented so as to be able to be read by the crew facing forward.

Two red lines, also for azimuth bearings, radiated to the rear along the top surface of each wing. Also note the "red" formation light on the top surface (port wing) and the "green" formation light on the starboard wing.
Other drawings reveal details of the numbers and markings on the tail surfaces of Pearl Harbor Kate/s and the Val/s recovered and Todd intends to include these details in his report.

Jim Lansdale
Credit: Ordway Family and Al Makiel Papers; also, "Information On Japanese Aircraft," USPacFleet, 18 December 1941 via Todd Pederson and LRA

Re: Kate Wing-L/E Azimuth Markings *PIC*

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: Kate Wing-L/E Azimuth Markings *PIC*> Date: Sunday, 10 February 2002, at 11:00 a.m.

In Response To: Pearl Harbor Kate Wing-Markings *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)

Perhaps the best view of the Nakajima B5N2 Kate wing leading-edge azimuth markings is the, remarkably clear, photo below provided by Shigeru NOHARA. Illustrated is a CV ZUIKAKU Kate [EII-330] returning from an attack.

Please note the five "angled slash" azimuth markings, presumably painted in white each marked with the numerals (innermost outward toward the wing tip) "4," "6," "8," "10," and "12." These markings were present on both wings and converged on the observer. Also note the two (white ?) azimuth bearing markings on the top deck in front of the pilot.

Jim Lansdale

Re: Another PH Kate Wing-Markings *PIC*

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: Another PH Kate Wing-Markings *PIC*> Date: Sunday, 10 February 2002, at 10:24 a.m.

In Response To: Pearl Harbor Kate Wing-Markings *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)

In October 1941, CV SORYU received, what appear to be, some factory-fresh Nakajima B5N2 Kates. Below is pictured a close-up of the top wing markings on Kate [BI-323] prior to the application of any surface camouflage and the Pearl Harbor attack.

The overall finish appears to be the documented "olive-brown" or "grey-poupon" Nakajima version of hairyokushoku (sometimes referred to as "ameiro" or a color close to FS-16160). Particularly note some of the important details, such as the wing-walk area (black ?) near the wing root by the side of the cockpit; the red fuel-filler cover; the red outlines to the "no-step/no-push" areas of the wing flaps and fuel tank; and, what appears to be, two, punctuated, but converging red-stripes leading from the trailing edge of the wings up to the pilot's compartment.

Is it significant that these so-called azimuth or formation stripes are not painted as solid stripes?

Jim Lansdale

Re: Another PH Kate Wing-Markings

Posted By: François P. WEILL <mailto:frpawe@wanadoo.fr?subject=Re: Another PH Kate Wing-Markings> Date: Tuesday, 12 February 2002, at 4:55 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Another PH Kate Wing-Markings *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)

Hi Jim,
As a sidenote to the very interesting dicovery of these strange wing markings, I have to disagree to the caption you attribute to this picture:
>> Below is pictured a close-up of the top wing markings on Kate [BI-323] prior to the application of any surface camouflage and the Pearl Harbor attack. The overall finish appears to be the documented "olive-brown" or "grey-poupon" Nakajima version of hairyokushoku (sometimes referred to as "ameiro" or a color close to FS-16160)<<
First remark: the only material evidence from Pearl Harbor Kates was described in this board some months ago (I think by our friend Greg Springer) and concerns the so-called "Hospital Kate".

The undersurfaces Hinomaru were described as "carefully masked" to apply the surrounding gray-green color which in the case of the "Hospital Kate" was in the 16350 range (which is the slightly weathered rendition of an original coat of 14201 Mitsubishi variant Hairyokushoku). This color was carefully appplied with no primer under.
During the exchange that followed the publication of the detailed information on this relic, David Aiken quoted some (unidentified) Japanese veteran witnesses, from which testimonies could be extracted two important data:

1 - The Hairyokushoku paint was applied at the respective shore bases to which the carrier units were attached when disembarked, not at the factory and this application implied a pause in the extensive pre-operation training.
2 - The respective shore bases didn't apply the same color to all Kates, some bases applied the Mitsubishi like color (like "the Hospital Kate"), the others used the FS 16160 range color (as used on Aichi Type 99 Dive Bombers).
Anyway, both the lack of primer, the Hinomaru masking and the witnesses quoted upper prove that the all over Hairyokushoku finish was not factory applied by Nakajima and consequently the B5N2's were delivered in this time frame in NMF like the preceeding B5N1's.

So Soryu BI-323 is certainly not a "factory fresh Hairyokushoku painted aircraft".

So what is it? At this stage, it could be one of the Kates painted in Hairyokushoku on their bases pictured between this first attempt of camouflage and the final application (in a hurry and much less carefully) of the uppersurface defensive camouflage color.

I have already blown up and digitally enhanced the picture of this plane and studied it carefully. Though it is not a good picture by any mean, a fact which could somewhat dissimulate the classical shiny appearance of Hairyokushoku paint (very high gloss when applied on primer state of the art and slightly less shiny when applied less carefully and without primer like on Zero undersurfaces from the end of 1943). But this plane doesn't appear so "clean" when you look carefully to the pic and the panel lines are really visible and - it seems -dirt as already accumulated in the joints. As you know, it is extremly difficult on an average (for the time) B&W pic to discriminate between Hairyokushoku and weathered NMF unless the characteristic specular reflections betray the application of Hairyokushoku. Another important fact is that the deletion of the red tails was already common place even on uncamouflaged planes at this time, though not generalized and not a single aircraft of the IJNAF spearhead forces (carrier or land based) seem to have still carried red tails on Dec. 7th 1941 (only reserve force and secondary units seem to have kept them). It seems the only aircraft to carry them in offensive action were Ryujo's planes in the Philippines (through a contemporary painting of an IJNAF official artist).

So, IMHO, the absence of the red tail on BI-323 is in no way indicative it has already received the camouflage coat.

It could be in fact a weathered NMF aircraft, already devoid of its red tail and, frankly speaking, as it wears many traces of wear and tear, due to the extensive training syllabus which took place before the "Hawaiian Operation" I'm inclined to think it was so.

I won't comment further the aspect of Pearl Kates, suffice to say, on the contrary to the affirmations of David Aiken, I think from careful examination of many photos some planes almost certainly escaped the first step of camouflage application and only carried the uppersurface camouflage through last minute replacement or as a result of the exchanges taking place between units to provide the Pearl Harbor bound task force with only one variant of the Nakajima bomber: the B5N2. This concerns specifically the planes bearing remnants of a red tail roughly camouflaged.

Friendly.
François

Re: Kate Finish

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: Kate Finish> Date: Tuesday, 12 February 2002, at 10:26 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Another PH Kate Wing-Markings (François P. WEILL)

Hi Francois
You write, "Anyway, both the lack of primer, the Hinomaru masking and the witnesses quoted upper prove that the all over Hairyokushoku finish was not factory applied by Nakajima and consequently the B5N2's were delivered in this time frame in NMF like the preceeding B5N1's."
This was true for one example. Was this true for all?

Many early model Kates were in NMF and many had field-applied finishes of overall hairyokushoku over the NMF or aluminum dope (regardless of shade, i.e. gray-green or "grey-poupon"). Several relics show this.

One factory model (approximately 1/48) of solid aluminum made by Nakajima has been documented and the oveall finish applied by Nakajima was close to FS-16350.
It may be academic and, perhaps, not specific to Nakajima (other contractors built the Kate), but several relics do indicate that some Kates were painted all over hairyokushoku prior to the application of the dark green top surface camouflage (this has been thoroughly documented). I cannot say this was always done at the factory, but, if the aircraft has the red no walk areas applied and the surface is not NMF in the photograph (i.e. no panel lines clearly indicated in a variety of textures), my presumtion still is that the aircraft in question was most likely (but not 100% certain! (;>)painted at the factory level.

FWIW
Jim Lansdale

Re: Kate Wing Azimuth Markings & Formation Flying?

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: Kate Wing Azimuth Markings & Formation Flying?> Date: Sunday, 10 February 2002, at 8:30 a.m.

In Response To: Pearl Harbor Kate Wing-Markings *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)

P.S.
I received an e-mail from a Japanese correspondent suggesting that the red chevron markings on the top surface of the Kate wings radiating to the rear and outward from the cockpit were also used as a formation-flying aid.

The two wing men in each shotai, I was told, could sight along the red markings of the lead aircraft. The formation could then fly two separate attack formations (tight or loose) which could result in the possibility of two different bomb spreads or patterns.

I have never heard this before!

Does anyone have any documentation for the possible use as formation flying aids for the markings in question?

TIA
Jim Lansdale

Re: Kate Wing Azimuth Markings & Formation Flying?

Posted By: Ken Glass <mailto:ken.glass@eudoramail.com?subject=Re: Kate Wing Azimuth Markings & Formation Flying?> Date: Sunday, 10 February 2002, at 12:38 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Kate Wing Azimuth Markings & Formation Flying? (James F. Lansdale)

Hello Jim,
Is it possible the wing 'formation marks' are designed for a five plane shotai, as used by the level bombers at PH? Was this five plane formation SOP for IJN horizontal bombing and not just a PH expedient?

Regards, Ken Glass

Re: Top Wing Azimuth Markings/Five Planes?

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: Top Wing Azimuth Markings/Five Planes?> Date: Sunday, 10 February 2002, at 1:10 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Kate Wing Azimuth Markings & Formation Flying? (Ken Glass)

Hi Ken
I have never thought about, "it (being) possible the wing 'formation marks' are designed for a five plane shotai, as used by the level bombers at PH" before. I suppose so!
You also asked, "Was this five plane formation SOP for IJN horizontal bombing and not just a PH expedient?"
Near as I can tell, the IJN used three-plane vics arranged into vics of nine. They also used vics of three nines or a large vic of 27. I suppose a vic of five could also be used for operations not limited to PH.

Thanks for the insights!
Jim Lansdale

Re: Top Wing Azimuth Markings/Five Planes?

Posted By: Mike Wenger <mailto:wengerm@mindspring.com?subject=Re: Top Wing Azimuth Markings/Five Planes?> Date: Sunday, 10 February 2002, at 3:31 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Top Wing Azimuth Markings/Five Planes? (James F. Lansdale)

Jim,
In the Japanese CV air group records from 1942 that I have examined, there was no further use made of the five-plave PH-like formations. Early on in the year they used 9 a/c chutais and then went to 6 a/c formations subsequent to the Tjilitjap raids.

It was not a clean transition, however, with some groups changing over to 6 a/c formations a bit early. Hiryu also played with 2 aircraft sections or shotais for reasons unknown. I have never been able to determine precisely how the formations were configured, but I am working on that.

Mike W.

Arizona bomber

Posted By: Allan H Rouse <mailto:s.a.rouse@worldnet.att.net?subject=Arizona bomber> Date: Wednesday, 16 January 2002, at 12:36 p.m.

Who delivered the bomb which sank the USS. Arizona? Does anybody know and what did their plane (assume a B5N2) look like? Years ago I had been told it was one of Kagas crews. Recently with the investigation of the wreck and the films presented in the TLC special maybe this bomber can be identified.For years I had thought it to be a Val off the Kaga.

Re: Arizona bomber

Posted By: Mike Wenger <mailto:wengerm@mindspring.com?subject=Re: Arizona bomber> Date: Friday, 18 January 2002, at 6:27 p.m.

In Response To: Arizona bomber (Allan H Rouse)

Allan,
There seems to be somewhat of a consensus that it was dropped by a horizontal bombing aircraft commanded by Lt.Cdr. Kusumi Tadashi from Hiryu. However, Kusumi was a pilot, not a bombardier. Kusumi's bombardier was Lt.(jg) Kondo Shojiro.
A bit more complicated is the issue of who ordered the release of the bomb. While there is some bit of disagreement regarding who ordered the drop, it was likely the "expert" bombardier in the #2 aircraft. In the (hopefully likely) event that was the case, the culprit was PO1c Kobayashi Masamatsu (I am not 100% positive regarding his given name translation). I would have to say that this was the likely scenario, based on information I have gleaned, and particularly, based on John DiVirgilio's superb research.
So, take your pick!
Kusumi - plane commander. Kondo - plane bombardier. Kobayashi - signalled for the drop.
Regards,
Mike Wenger

Re: Arizona bomber

Posted By: Allan H Rouse <mailto:s.a.rouse@worldnet.att.net?subject=Re: Arizona bomber> Date: Sunday, 20 January 2002, at 7:50 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Arizona bomber (Mike Wenger)

From all of the research out there, can one assume that both the Kusumi/ Kondo or the Kobayashi planes were painted as others from Hiryu. Dark IJN green mottled brown upper surface, Lt. grey under surface. Two (2) blue stripes around the rear fuselage. Does anybody have a picture or references to the codes?
Thanks: Allan H. Rouse

Re: Arizona bomber

Posted By: Jim Szabo <mailto:chkm8t1@aol.com?subject=Re: Arizona bomber> Date: Wednesday, 23 January 2002, at 12:15 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Arizona bomber (Allan H Rouse)

Allan,
As far as the paint scheme goes you are correct as it appears about the green top over grey bottom scheme. There are differing views about the mottling. Some think it was a uneven painting of the green that is visable in B/W photos, allowing the undercoat to seem visable (Grey Poupon color - I can't pronounce or spell the hairy whatever grey/green color) while some believe it is a brown mottle. Your discretion.
As for the tail codes, unless someone knows more, this is my take on it. It is either unknown, or unpublished as of yet as to the tail code of Kusumi's Kate. If it was his A/C, and evidence appears to suggest that, he would most likely have two yellow bands below the tail code. The experts can chime in here to set me straight if needed. As a 5 plane flight leader he would be a hikotachio, correct? Buntachio = Carrier Air Group Leader, Shotachio = 3 plane flight? I am at work so the references are not at hand. As for numbers, of course it's BII-3XX. But, and this is MY SPECULATION only, I believe it could be BII-307.
The reason being that I remember a post discussing ordinace used that day remarking that the only successful aircraft to utilize the single bomb on the Kates (I can not remember the size! 1,000lb?) was BII-307. Now, what is successful? A drop at the #2 turret of USS Arizona in my opinion. Unless I'm wrong, no other bomb of that size did the damage equivalent to that of Arizona. Most other damages occurred from the Vals.
And yes, Hiryu was 2 blue stripes around the fuselage. Perhaps the true students of this event can add or refute my unscientific theory on this mystery.

Pearl Harbor Kates

Posted By: DJF <mailto:fritz.dj@verizon.net?subject=Pearl Harbor Kates> Date: Thursday, 23 May 2002, at 5:21 p.m.

What color were the undersides of the B5N during the attack on Pearl Harbor? Some references indicate aluminum while others indicate ameiro. Specifically, I would like to build the Hasegawa 1/48 kit to represent a Hiryu or Soryu Kate with the green and brown splotched uppersurface scheme, but I am not sure of the underside color.
Thanks, DJF

Re: Pearl Harbor Kates

Posted By: Greg Springer <mailto:gspring@ix.netcom.com?subject=Re: Pearl Harbor Kates> Date: Friday, 24 May 2002, at 4:36 p.m.

In Response To: Pearl Harbor Kates (DJF)

Hello DJF,
Here's a mix for Testors ModelMaster Enamels that I matched to a fragment from underside of a wing from the Kaga B5N that crashed at the Navy Hospital at PH.
40 Parts 'Faded Olive Drab', stock # 2051 28 Parts Armor Sand FS 30277 26 Parts White 1 Part Black
Cover with a high gloss clear coat.
Happy Modeling
Greg

Re: Checked Zero

Posted By: Nick Millman Date: Tuesday, 21 May 2002, at 7:28 a.m.

In Response To: Checked Zero (Gordon Clarke)

A myth I believe. Sammy Pierce (8FS/49FG) recalled that the Zero "was not painted in a checker-board design but that it was camouflaged and the scheme gave this effect when seen in the air". The black and white effect suggests a faded ameiro grey with a fairly dark green cross-hatched design over it.
Refer to Jim Lansdale's pics below to see how this appearance could arise. "Sakie" or "Wewak Willie" could have been more than one pilot, flying field camouflaged Zeros of the same style and appearance.
A nice story - the IJN equivalent of the Ki-61 Tony with the large green shamrock!

Re: Pearl Harbor Kates

Posted By: Grant Goodale <mailto:grant.goodale@sympatico.ca?subject=Re: Pearl Harbor Kates> Date: Thursday, 23 May 2002, at 6:09 p.m.

In Response To: Pearl Harbor Kates (DJF)

DJF -
To the best of my knowledge, the only B5N that had NMF was Fuchida's AI-301. Based on the paint mixes that were well researched for the 2001 Nats project, the "gray" that formed the undercoat for the splotched uppers and for the lower surfaces would be Tamiya Dark Yellow (XF-60) plus 25% white for scale effect.
HTH
- Grant

Type 99 #80 Mark 5 800 kg AP bomb

Posted By: Malcolm Laing <mailto:mlaing@door.net?subject=Type 99 #80 Mark 5 800 kg AP bomb> Date: Monday, 20 May 2002, at 8:37 a.m.

I have checked the research articles and threads, but can not seem to locate the dimensions for the Type 99 #80 mk 5 800kg AP bomb that the "Kates" carried at Pearl Harbor. Would it be possible that anyone knows them?
Thanks!

Re: Type 99 #80 Mark 5 800 kg AP bomb

Posted By: Lars Ahlberg <mailto:lars.ahlberg@halmstad.mail.postnet.se?subject=Re: Type 99 #80 Mark 5 800 kg AP bomb> Date: Monday, 20 May 2002, at 3:11 p.m.

In Response To: Type 99 #80 Mark 5 800 kg AP bomb (Malcolm Laing)

Hi,
The US Naval Technical Mission to Japan reported these dimensions: Length (total) 2351 mm, diameter 409 mm, weight 796.8 kg.
In one of the "Gakken volumes", don't remember which one, we can find some additional information (and drawings): Length 2351 mm, diameter 409 mm, weight 796.8 ±6.0 kg, explosives 22.8 kg
Lars

Re: Type 99 #80 Mark 5 800 kg AP bomb

Posted By: chris allred <mailto:allredchruis@hotmail.com?subject=Re: Type 99 #80 Mark 5 800 kg AP bomb> Date: Monday, 20 May 2002, at 10:04 a.m.

In Response To: Type 99 #80 Mark 5 800 kg AP bomb (Malcolm Laing)

In Paul Stillwell's book on the USS Arizona there is a detailed drawing by John DeVirgillio. John has done extenstive research on the 7th Dec. Banzai Chris

Re: Type 99 #80 Mark 5 800 kg AP bomb

Posted By: Grant Goodale <mailto:grant.goodale@sympatico.ca?subject=Re: Type 99 #80 Mark 5 800 kg AP bomb> Date: Monday, 20 May 2002, at 8:55 a.m.

In Response To: Type 99 #80 Mark 5 800 kg AP bomb (Malcolm Laing)

Malcolm -
The best that I can do is from Model Art 573 which states the total length of 2359 mm and a maximum diameter of 409 mm.
HTH
- Grant

Return to Navy Message Board Threads