Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: DPQ5 on June 02, 2008, 09:59:28 PM
-
Ok this is like the sonder komando elba thread, do you think this idea was a good idea. Remember the fact that you can sink a aircraft carrier with only sever planes and a couple deths instead of having to send massive amounts of torpedo bombers, dive bombers, and normal bombers to sink a cv wich can resualt in many casualties to your side without harming the target.
-
good luck getting their in small numbers.
-
I cannot believe that this has been brought up again.
-
Its not like the wishlist, I am not asking for it, just disguesing the affect and wheather it was a good last ditch effort.
-
Its not like the wishlist, I am not asking for it, just disguesing the affect and wheather it was a good last ditch effort.
English, boy; DO YOU SPEAK IT!?
-
It failed the Japanese a good chance to save hundreds, maybe thousands of their pilots to go defend their home islands. It failed then, and it will only be a nusance in AHII. It would have to have it's own icon something like "KAM" So that way, players would atleast know what it is instead of a "zero" or something like that. IF HT really wanted to do that, then it could be it's own score or something like that, but I doubt it. :aok
-
Its not like the wishlist, I am not asking for it, just disguesing the affect and wheather it was a good last ditch effort.
disguesing=discussing
wheather=whether :aok :aok :aok
NOT
-
He either A.) hasn't seen the spell Check at the bottom or B.) doesn't care to use it.
-
Kamikazes - the WW2 precursors of today's suicide bombers. Pity any man who's so brainwashed he wants to die.
:(
-
kamikaze dorks should die!
oh wait... they do! :)
-
thares a speel chek at the botem nowe? lol jk
-
hmm... havent noticed
:rofl
-
:rofl I kamikazee all the time. Up a stuka, hunt cruiser, kill cruiser, die to massive amount of ack or get chased down by some tard wanting an easy kill on a stuka. Little does he know i get more perks and bomber points from that one flight and death than he gets from killing me.
Best i ever got was 33.50 something in midwar for 1 cruiser kill with 1 moab. :aok Think we were outnumbered 7 to 1 at the time. :lol
-
Kamikazes - the WW2 precursors of today's suicide bombers. Pity any man who's so brainwashed he wants to die.
:(
There's a HUGE difference between kamikaze units and terrorist suicide bombers: the former were soldiers in war who willingly sacrificed their lives to hit military targets, the latter are just coward, brainwashed SOBs who kill themselves to spread terror among civilians.
Kamikazes can (I dare to say are) to be respected for what they did, suicide bombers can and must not.
-
willingly...well...they had to be somewhat talked into the job. Or "pushed". "gently".
-
willingly...well...they had to be somewhat talked into the job. Or "pushed". "gently".
I'd say it was more of a cultural conditioning than a matter of pushing or talking them into it: they were simply put before a choice of honor and dishonor, a choice that, in Japanese culture, especially in military culture, could have ended only in one way. That's why I said willingly. Consciously, maybe, was the right word. ;)
-
I'd say it was more of a cultural conditioning than a matter of pushing or talking them into it: they were simply put before a choice of honor and dishonor, a choice that, in Japanese culture, especially in military culture, could have ended only in one way. That's why I said willingly. Consciously, maybe, was the right word. ;)
Something like that. Haven't got time to google it now, but maybe you? Go for Saburo Sakai, - I recall him commenting on the Kamikaze.
BTW, many years ago I saw an open surgery on a horse, where a very special and sharp knife was used to remove larvi from a horse's foot. The knife was of japanese build, - for "Seppuko"
The culture supports suicide, but not all young men simply want to die...........
-
Yeah, I've finished reading Sakai's memories just 2-3 months ago. I think it's a good way to get a glimpse of what was the Japanese mentality. I saw in the local bookstore a book written by the Colonel who set up the kamikaze units, didn't buy it at the time, though, now it's not available anymore :p
-
The Japanese forced many Koreans to fly as Kamikaze pilots. They executed the families of the Koreans who failed to complete Kamikaze training or returned from a mission.
-
There was something like 18 Korean Kamikaze pilots, compared to thousands of Japanese IJN and IJAAF personell in the special attack group units (both air and naval). There were Koreans who were employed in the Japanese military, and many more forced laborers.
The historical evidence seems to be that the Kamikaze units were all volunteer, there was no drugging, or threatening, or killing of families (not Japanese members anyways). It was considered a very honorable duty to be accepted to the unit, they had no shortage of volunteers, and in fact, many were turned away. Also, despite popular misconception, you could transfer out of it.
The western notion of duty does not have a direct equivelant to such units, so some tend to call them "crazy" or deride them by using other similar terms, or suggesting they were brainwashed or other notions.
What they were, were a fatalistic, highly militarized, hyper-patriotic, desperate country by 1945, who said in no uncertain terms to its military flyers the horrors of what would happen to their homeland and their families if the invasion fleets were not stopped (true or not thats what they were told), and they asked for volunteers to stop them, in what would be a one way mission. Most didnt beleive they would survice the war anyways...and felt that they might be able to stave off invasion by making the ultimate sacrifice.
...Thats how they saw it, again, im not trying to "glorify it" or say it was "right", or "cool".
If you want to read a couple of good books on the IJN and IJAAF Henry Sakaida has written a few, he is a respected Japanese WW2 historian who has works published in English.
My last point is this: The IJN and IJAAF were not stupid. They knew full well what the casualty rate of a conventional attack would be vs a large CV group in 1945, with green pilots at the controls, flying largely obsolecent and unsuitable types. That also, in essence, was a suicide mission in all but name. The only difference was instead of dropping the bomb or torpedo, you flew it into the ship. In the end, the casualties would have been close to the same. Few if any would have survived the 1st wave of interceptors, then the flak (in and out) then the interceptors on the way back for a second time, and they knew it. Read the accounts of The Battle of The Phillipine Sea, and Leyte Gulf, in late 1944, where the notion of Kamikaze was born, and you get the idea.
-
Someone throws a grenade into your squad. A brave soldier, who could have diven away from it to safety, instead, dives on top of it to save his comrades in arms.
How crazy is that?
Or how about a misinterpreted attack order, which nonetheless, the cavalry soldiers follow to the bitter end, right into the raging hell of a cannonfire. We call that the Legendary Charge of the Light Brigade.
Or plenty of cases in which a certain division or a battalion, willingly stays in the battle upto the last moment to ensure the safe evacuation of other troops. This certainly has happened before, with great praise noting their valour.
Or how about the Texans' suicdal stand against the army of Santa Ana? They could have just surrenderd. But they fought 'til the bitter end. You guys call it the "Stand of Alamo". You praise them as heroes, unlike the Japanese soldiers fighting to the bitter end in Iwojima, which most seem to like to call "crazy" and "brainwashed".
So what makes the Kamikaze so different? Because it was more organized? Systematic in producing deaths of militarymen? Because they were committed by Asians?
Each of the case above, a certain social conditioning, and bonding with the group, coupled with individual valour, loyalty, and almost blind fervor and dedication, resulted in a suicidal, willing death for a cause which they held more important than their own lives. The last time I checked, the Western guys weren't exactly too much disgusted when they recall these 'glorious moments of bravery' - until it comes to the Kamikaze.
Then they become irrational, brainwashed, blindly patriotic, barbaric, and etc etc..
Perhaps its something about the way how the Japanese top brass deemed it necessary without a flinch, contrary to most cases when military leadership usually finds it difficult to willingly sacrifice men in such a brutal manner. But then again, its not as if Western military leaders have never sacrificed their men - regardless of how difficult they found to do so.
The Far-east had a very different way of thinking. Our intertwined social duties towards each class and rank of people were deemed absolute, and the concept of "Loyalty" (忠) used to run a bit profoundly deeper than just can be explained by the word "loyalty". For instance, when the country was in shambles, or would be annexed by an enemy country, many people would give rituals to the line of ancestral kings, and then commit ritual suicide in shame and guilt of failing their duty to preserve the nation and its people. You've never exactly seen such things happen in, let's say, Denmark for instance, when it was annexed by Germany in WW2. Such things did happen in the Korean peninsula, when the Japanese annexed the kingdom of Choson. Disheartened and grieving loyalists apologized to the line of kings, by committing ritual suicide. It wasn't just the Japanese who had notions of honor, duty, and loyalty which led to willing deaths.
So it becomes a question of how much does any one of us really understand those people. 'Culture', as some people put it, or a 'state of mind', rather. Whichever it is, should be at least a source of intrigue and understanding, than just something of plain disgust - for you never know what things about you guys, we may find just as much plainly disgusting.
;)
-
Besides, Kamikazes were very effective use of resources.
Kamikazes achieved more with lesser casualties than Japanese air forces could have achieved otherwise. Roughly half of the all kamikaze sorties returned back because not being able to achieve mission or not finding target. For example in Kukusui operations 6.4.-22.6.1945 total of 1809 kamikaze sorties were flown, with 51,4% of the planes destroyed. They destroyed 17 warships and damaged 198 ships. The success rate was 23,1%.
In total about 25% of all allied shipping was destroyed or damaged in the operations area by kamikazes.
All in all, kamikazes were in practise most effective way to use the resources - at Okinawa over 3000 Japanese planes were destroyed, with just 900 of these being kamikazes. What did the non-kamikazes achieve?
-
willingly...well...they had to be somewhat talked into the job. Or "pushed". "gently".
LMAO does anyone remember that Cheech & Chong bit from Big Bambu?
"Today," he exhorts, "you will take your kamikaze airplane high into the sky, over the Yankee aircraft carrier, then take the kamikaze plane down, crashing on the deck, killing yourself and all aboard. Before we have the ceremonial sake toast, are there any questions?"
A hand rises tentatively in the back of the crowd: "Honorable general-san: Are you out of your flipping mind?"
-
The Far-east had a very different way of thinking.
This is very interesting topic, btw. Do you think that there is "European thinking", that the Scandinavians think same as the Italian or Spanish, or do you think that Korean, Japanese, Chinese, Thai, Philipino, Indonesian etc. think all the same ?
I happen to know some "Asian" thinking, and what i know, many Chinese really hate the Japanese. I speak from experience.
-
I know some "Asian" thinking too, they seem to think they are better at math and science than US kids.........(and they are right! :()
-
people are still posting on this thread.....wow
-
I'm a bit torn on the subject of Kamikaze attacks. I don't wanna see'em used in the MA, but they have been used in every air war by every nation since the First World War. I don't think Hollywood is guilty of over dramatizing or historical revisionism when they show a scene of a mortally wounded pilot diving his plane into a target of opportunity. Whether it's a Zepplin, a Carrier, or a hanger.
Brit pilots would ram german bombers. Germans did the same to allied bombers over Germany and the Russians were even worse. So the Japanese weren't the ONLY nationality that were willing to die before they allowed a single bomb to fall on their beloved homeland, or their brothers at arms.
Here's an even weirder idea. I'm not posting it in the WishList either. I'm just throwing it at the wall for discussion. A Campaign special event that puts a limit on experienced pilots. You get killed. You don't come back. You can only be replaced by someone still using their two week trial subscrption. LOL. Now there's REALISM for you.
-
Besides, Kamikazes were very effective use of resources.
Kamikazes achieved more with lesser casualties than Japanese air forces could have achieved otherwise. Roughly half of the all kamikaze sorties returned back because not being able to achieve mission or not finding target. For example in Kukusui operations 6.4.-22.6.1945 total of 1809 kamikaze sorties were flown, with 51,4% of the planes destroyed. They destroyed 17 warships and damaged 198 ships. The success rate was 23,1%.
In total about 25% of all allied shipping was destroyed or damaged in the operations area by kamikazes.
All in all, kamikazes were in practise most effective way to use the resources - at Okinawa over 3000 Japanese planes were destroyed, with just 900 of these being kamikazes. What did the non-kamikazes achieve?
I'm wondering a bit these numbers, what's the source BTW?
I see large variation on numbers on sources, Wiki gives following quote:
"Approximately 2,800 Kamikaze attackers sunk 34 Navy ships, damaged 368 others, killed 4,900 sailors, and wounded over 4,800. Despite radar detection and cuing, airborne interception and attrition, and massive anti-aircraft barrages, a distressing 14 percent of Kamikazes survived to score a hit on a ship; nearly 8.5 percent of all ships hit by Kamikazes sank."
These are probably for all Kamikaze attacks committed.
-
I'm a bit torn on the subject of Kamikaze attacks. I don't wanna see'em used in the MA, but they have been used in every air war by every nation since the First World War. I don't think Hollywood is guilty of over dramatizing or historical revisionism when they show a scene of a mortally wounded pilot diving his plane into a target of opportunity. Whether it's a Zepplin, a Carrier, or a hanger.
Brit pilots would ram german bombers. Germans did the same to allied bombers over Germany and the Russians were even worse. So the Japanese weren't the ONLY nationality that were willing to die before they allowed a single bomb to fall on their beloved homeland, or their brothers at arms.
Here's an even weirder idea. I'm not posting it in the WishList either. I'm just throwing it at the wall for discussion. A Campaign special event that puts a limit on experienced pilots. You get killed. You don't come back. You can only be replaced by someone still using their two week trial subscrption. LOL. Now there's REALISM for you.
lolz this is not the wishlist i never wanted this to be a thread about asking for kamkazes
-
This is very interesting topic, btw. Do you think that there is "European thinking", that the Scandinavians think same as the Italian or Spanish, or do you think that Korean, Japanese, Chinese, Thai, Philipino, Indonesian etc. think all the same ?
It's a delicate issue to discuss, Tim.
It more of a certain tendency, or logical process of achieving motivation towards certain specific means, rather than exists a signified "Asian way of thinking" or "European way of thinking" or "American way of thinking" per se... ie., it is very difficult to come up with a certain standard in which to distinguish what sort of thinking falls under which category.
However, there does seem to exist a certain tendency, or profound difference in the basic logical process in which different peoples of the world reach different conclusions altogether. Certainly, in the case of Kamikazes, there existed a strong, brutal, and militaristic need to motivate people into seemingly "insanely hyper-patriotic" course of action, in the higher circles of the military (most notably the Imperial Japanese Army, which dominated the Imperial general staff). However, the basic premise is that such process of motivating the soldiers wouldn't have worked, unless the soldiers themselves were already familiar with such notions through unique cultural conditioning from the society they were brought up in. Hence, the (possibly misleading) term "~ way of thinking".
For instance, it is terribly awkward to imagine contemporary troops of the West - let's say, the USN pilots and sailors for instance - willingly embarking on a literally "suicidal" mission because they were commanded to do so. Usually "suicidal" in the West, would mean a mission of high profile with very high casualty rates expected, rather than literally ordering your soldiers to dive in and commit deadly suicide.. and in most cases, the middle command would probably very strongly protest and resist such demands from the higher chain of command, even before the soldiers would ever be notified of such orders, in the first place.
In the case of the Japanese, there does seem to exist some evidence that such notions weren't exactly welcomed by neither the soldiers nor the middle command - however, despite such differing individual opinions, the ultimate justification of the Kamikaze - "sacrifice to defend the nation" - did succeed in convincing both the soldiers and the organizers into actually realizing and performing suicidal attacks.
As I've mentioned earlier, suicidal acts of bravery and valour do exist both in the East and the West, but the key difference seems to be that the former, in the form of the Kamikaze, was systematically organized and performed as a regular course of action, in sharp contrast to, let's say, the Alamo for instance, in which case individual voluntarism resulted in the fatal stand which resulted in the massacre. This difference in the prelude to the event, in which the top brass orders intentional suicide, and the soldiers following the order to its bitter end without resistance or question, seems to be what the afore mentioned 'Western way of thinking" finds most inexplicable.
The problem is, as a Far-Eastern Asian myself, such notions are quite familiar to me. Ofcourse, it doesn't mean I'd do the same thing in their shoes, but I really do find the concept of patriotic, willing death very familiar and in a sense, almost natural. The deep rooted feelings of the masses concerning their own nation and society, in most cases, Western literature would call it "Nationalism".. However, the interesting thing is that in the Far East, such feelings existed a lot earlier than the advent of modern nationalism in the 19th century. This Asian version of ancient nationalism borders more on the concept of blood lines and family values, probably a bit similar to the Italian mob concept of 'family' in films.
Confucianism acted as a strong, concrete bond which supports this way of thought, in which the nation, its king, and the society and its people were a singular part of the same, earthly body which represents the "way of the Heavens". An ideal society was a "righteous" society - and in which case, everyone was dutified to defend the society to the death, were it ever under attack. This meant that realistically, the ultimate goal of every one inside the society would be to preserve the status quo to its utmost.
IMO, this is where the Western and Eastern way of thinking starts to diverge. IIRC Western feudalism was basically a loose-formed web of individual duties and contracts. When the upper rank in the hierarchy failed to fulfill its duty, the lower rank, as conditioned by the contract, would have the right to rebel. This resulted in most of the Europe existing as small, individual kingdoms and lordships for most of the former millenium. Only after the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries did powerful kings emerge, and almost immediately the advent of captalism and industrialism castrated the feudal system and reshaped it into a nationalistic imperialism in the 19th century. In contrast, most of Asia, with the afore mentioned social characteristics, maintained kingdoms and empires of highly-centralized bureacracy for at least 2,000 years straight. A vassal's vows to his lord were like marital vows - in sickness and health, for better or worse, and even death wouldn't do us apart. A king is a king, and a vassal is a vassal. When a vassal has sworn loyalty it doesn't have an expiration date. It was literarily to the death. Everything was about righteousness and loyalty, and to preserve the line of kings, to protect one's lord, to preserve one's own society from outside incursions and ideas, was the utmost duty for every one born on the land. It's not only the samurais of Japan who had these notions - as a matter of fact, the Japanese had imported and learned such strict and fanatical devotion from the scholars of the Korean peninsula during the 13th century. These ideas were restrengthened during the Tokugawa shogunate after the 17th century, and ofcourse, the Korean peninsula was already thinking this way from at least the 10th century and so forth.
This way of thinking, after the 19th century, fused and mixed with modern concept of nationalism and imperialism in Japan. And thus, ultimately led to the tragedy of the Kamikazes. As said, a vassal's sworn loyalty was eternal - thus, you see Japanese high ranking officers committing ritual suicde after failing to protect the Empire. The society had a duty to preserve itself from outside incursions and ideas - thus, you see young soldiers, despite their individual terrors and fears, finally succumbing to the call of the divine wind, and sacrificing their lives in attempts to stop the US invasion of the Home Islands.
In the beginning of the 1950's, when the Korean War started, South Korean soldiers were basically no different from the Japanes of WWII. Patriotism was the ultimate virtue, and defending the new-born Republic of Korea, was of utmost importance when the war started. High-school kids were volunteering en masse to the ill-equipped and shabby organized ROK Army.
When feudalism ended in the Far East, the fiercely loyal, devoted sentiment towards one's king and society quickly replaced the "king" part with the "nation/government" part.
That's why I've mentioned that it would be hard to imagine such things happening in Denmark for instance. King Christian X of Denmark was the country's symbol of survival during the years of German annexation, but that didn't mean to the Danes that they had a direct duty to protect and preserve the Royal family with their deaths. Had the Nazis murdered Christian X, that'd have brought out furious public outbreaks of rage and anger, but that wouldn't necessarily have meant the death of Christian X would mean the end of Denmark or its people. However, to the Japanese, US invasion was coming closer everyday. This might mean the Emperor might be deposed, and Japanese society might be changed by a foreigner's whim. To them, that was as same as a death threat, and they found enough reason to sacrifice even one's own life, to put a stop to it. Things weren't so different in Choson, the kingdom that existed before the Republic of Korea. When the king was murdered by the Japanese, many of the vassals followed him in death, When the annexation of the peninsula was realized, social leaders and scholars committed suicide in anguish, shame, and guilt. It was their duty to preserve the ideals of the society - and failing it, and living to see the shame of it, was the ultimate disgrace.
That kind of thinking, is what I'd consider "Asian way of thinking"
I happen to know some "Asian" thinking, and what i know, many Chinese really hate the Japanese. I speak from experience.
Same here in Korea.
Remember that I've mentioned earlier that the old Asian variant of loyalism, was fused with modern nationalism. As a result, the Far East is about the most nationalistic region in the world nowadays, in contrast to the fact that nationalism is a passing ideal in the West nowadays. Ofcourse, the fact that the Japanese invasion and annexation didn't exactly treat the natives of each land with kindness and equality, during the days prior and into WWII, doesn't exactly help either.
-
"As I've mentioned earlier, suicidal acts of bravery and valour do exist both in the East and the West, but the key difference seems to be that the former, in the form of the Kamikaze, was systematically organized and performed as a regular course of action, in sharp contrast to, let's say, the Alamo for instance, in which case individual voluntarism resulted in the fatal stand which resulted in the massacre. This difference in the prelude to the event, in which the top brass orders intentional suicide, and the soldiers following the order to its bitter end without resistance or question, seems to be what the afore mentioned 'Western way of thinking" finds most inexplicable. "
Precicely!
-
Oh, I forgot one item!
In the Japanese advance down to Singapore, they actually went through British barriers (barbed wire+machine gun nests) by simple suicide.
The front troops would sacrifice themselves on the wires while the ones advancing behind them would use their bodies to walk the wire. So a swift advance would make that kind of defence useless, - to stop such a flow there was no technology, just plain man vs man.
No doubt this is also very bad for the defender's morale...an enemy that will not stop at the door of death.
But there is a paralell. Zhukov once said something like "If my army encounters a minefield, it will cross it as if it wasn't there".....
Now this is from "above" command. I have seen many tales of induvidual acts, and there is one that I am sure you AH'ers will have fun reading ;)
Will post later.
-
Soviets ordered conscripts to make the mines blow up so the real soldiers could get through, ghastly commanders they were. Fascinating book by a conscript into the German army--'Guy Sajer' on the subject, (forget the title) he literally spent the whole war on the Russian front and lived
-
The Germans were more "practical", in an evil way in the mine cleaning business. They used pigs, later on Jews AFAIK. :(
And the western Allies:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/M4a4_flail_cfb_borden_2.JPG)
Much more practical :D
BTW, Hitler did state that a democratical state could not produce a strong/ruthless enough army (something of the meaning, not accurate words). This was AFAIK related to the U.S. after they ended up in the fight. Well, he got this handed back to him nicely when the U.S. troops stuck at Bastogne. Remember the message exchange?
German: Surrender?
US: Nuts?
German: Vot do you mean?
US: Go To Hell.
-
Vot do u mean
Go to hell :rofl
-
The Germans were more "practical", in an evil way in the mine cleaning business. They used pigs, later on Jews AFAIK. :(
And the western Allies:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/M4a4_flail_cfb_borden_2.JPG)
Much more practical :D
BTW, Hitler did state that a democratical state could not produce a strong/ruthless enough army (something of the meaning, not accurate words). This was AFAIK related to the U.S. after they ended up in the fight. Well, he got this handed back to him nicely when the U.S. troops stuck at Bastogne. Remember the message exchange?
German: Surrender?
US: Nuts?
German: Vot do you mean?
US: Go To Hell.
Those stupid, stupid Nazis...
I'm so glad they lost.
-
Those stupid, stupid Nazis...
I'm so glad they lost.
the Nazis are not stupid some ways they are
-
Nono, they're stupid allright, just good at pretending to be smart :devil
-
"Soviets ordered conscripts to make the mines blow up so the real soldiers could get through"
The entire Red Army was conscripted, you are referring to penal battalions. The Germans had them too btw, but I would think the Soviet ones were probably worse to serve in. Essentially you were under a suspended death sentence, and to get out of it, you had to be wounded in action, or distinguish yourself, or, well, be killed.
-
D-day was close to sicide for some...planners. At some places, 80% casualties were expected, and this was known by Ike. Luckily, the darkest forecasts did not turn true.