Just how bad of an idea was the kamikaze /his/?
I understand the point was to strike fear but it seems like something out of desperation rather than any sort of winning strategy.Has there been any stupider ideas besides the kamikazi?
>>340763
Japan had no winning strategy by 1942. Kamikaze made perfect cultural sense in this context, which the IJA and IJN elites were fully aware of.
It was combat effective. Would have been tactically and maybe strategically effective. IF they had had the planes crash into troop transports instead of warships.
>>340763
>Some college graduates, who did not volunteer willingly, were pressured to circle "desire earnestly" in the survey.
>Many former students from Japan's elite colleges such as Tokyo, Kyoto, Keio and Waseda volunteered as kamikaze pilots in World War II.
The Kamikaze program was designed to weed out "liberal" minded educated citizens who the government thought were a risk of undermining the war effort.
>>340763
It was something embraced out of desperation.
>.Has there been any stupider ideas besides the kamikazi?
The parasite fighter springs to mind.
>>340763
>Has there been any stupider ideas besides the kamikazi?
Waste money on them then keep away from fighting because they're too precious then waste them on a suicide mission.
>be Japs
>lose nearly all good pilots at Midway
>have no option but to teach young zealots about muh samurai code and how to get a plane in the air and aim it at a boat
>>340853
>hey kid you want to fly some planes
>>340811
That sounds like it's pushing the tinfoil a little bit.
>>340763
It was really bad. One of the few times in history where you can point and say "look, prioritizing the individual over the collective does make sense."
They had their most experienced and motivated fighters literally kill themselves to do pinpricks of damage to an unbeatable opponent. Not only was it quantifiably demoralizing, but it also ruined the social capital of the japanese military as a while. Experience and morale are among the most important factors of a victorious army, and experience and morale is what they lost each kamikaze flight.
>>340763
>>340786
>>340831
>>340842
What the fuck are you all of you people talking about? The Kamikazes were HORRIFYINGLY effective. The USS Enterprise was knocked out by a kamikaze, something that the Japs entire naval fleet could not do. I've talked to many veterans of the pacific front, and they all have the same opinion of the kamikazes - they were easily the worst thing to face against. Anti-aircraft gunners would prioritize them above all else because even a single one could sink a ship. It got so bad that the US army censored all information about the Kamikazes from the press and from their own soldiers because they thought if people knew how much damage they were doing the Americans back home might actually want to white-peace Japan rather than force unconditional surrender.
>>340979
>The Kamikazes were HORRIFYINGLY effective. The USS Enterprise was knocked out by a kamikaze
Knocking out one carrier is not a strategic effect.
>I've talked to many veterans of the pacific front, and they all have the same opinion of the kamikazes - they were easily the worst thing to face against.
Never mind the fact that you're not an oral historian, and that personal recollections are notoriously unreliable, these "veterans" are talking about tactical considerations.
>>341009
>Knocking out one carrier is not a strategic effect.
Am I being baited
>>340763
It was actually surprisingly effective, too bad they waited until they were already close to total defeat to start using it
>>341017
Look up US fleet carrier production figures friendo.
>>341023
Well I mean, under what other circumstances would you consider using it?
>>341032
If you realised that normal tactics were going to get you batted around the Pacific and eventually crushingly defeated by a superior foe?
>>341043
So prior to December 1941?
>>340831
What the fucks a parasite fighter?
>>340979
>kamikazes
>sinking ships
>>341054
Ahem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ships_sunk_by_kamikaze_attack
>>341026
>gets called out for shitposting
>uhh... look it up!
>>341054
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ships_sunk_by_kamikaze_attack
>>341070
Do you know the difference between strategic aims and operational warfare? Obviously not.
>>341053
Fighters that are designed to take off in mid-air, being carried by a larger plane (usually a four engined bomber)
>>340922
Why else would they target college grads?
>>341053
A plane attached to a bigger plane, like a bomber for example, that detaches when necessary and flies on its own to fight.
>>341128
Literacy and engagement are normally needed to train pilots, even ones that are meant to fly one mission. Prior to mass high school in the 1960s and 1970s, the easiest way to access these individuals was through people in scholarly further education or higher education.
Kamikaze was meant to be asymmetrical warfare, similar to suicide bombers today. It was awful for morale, you had to build up an incredible amount of morale for it to work.
By the time is was used frequently, Japan had no hopes of winning the war. They were just looking for favorable conditions of surrender, and trying to make it as costly as possible for the Americans.
>>340979
# of fleet carriers sunk by kamikazes: 0
# of fleet carriers sunk by conventional Japanese aircraft attack: 3 (4 if you count the Langley)
Kamikaze made sense and adhered perfectly to the Imperial Japanese warrior ethos.
Starting the war with the US in the first place made no sense whatsoever.
>>340763
It was part of the general idea of causing extensive American casualties with little regard to Japanese losses. IIRC, they were much harder to stop than conventional bombers (the plane must crash into the ocean to stop it).
>>341219
>>341194
>>341145
Kamikazes weren't something the Japanese thought of right away; it wasn't part of their "normal" warrior ethos.
Rather, it was something they turned to after the lack of fuel made pilot training almost impossible; you couldn't get guys who could fly worth a damn, so it was an attempt to make the most of your now awful pilots.
>>340799
Combat effective is not killing your pilots.
IIRC they weren't all that effective alot of them did get shot down.
>>341176
He's probably confusing escort carriers with fleet carriers.
>>341247
>Combat effective is not killing your pilots.
All they're pilots were already dead.
The kamikazes were just poor saps ripped off the streets, given the absolute minimal amount of training required to fly a plane, and told that if they failed or ran away, their families would suffer. By the time this was happening, Japan already lost all their actual fighter pilots. They didn't even have enough fighter pilots to train new fighter pilots.
