General Discussion

[jcf]

Or personal honour.

Going off to try and find and attack aircraft carriers an unknown distance away when
you're only carrying enough fuel to get you from northern Kyushu, or southern Honshu,
to the landing zones on southern Kyushu, would be an abrogation of personal honour.
Setting aside, of course, that most of what people think they know about the subject
of "honour" in the context of Japanese society and history is an invented mythology. 

[jcf]

I can see some of the types that were specifically designed for kamikaze operations being used against troops etc, but larger types just seems a waste. However I suppose the whole kamikaze concept is exceptionally difficult for those of us from outside of Japan to understand ?

The landbased bombers, single and multi-engined, were going to be sent out to find and attack the capital ships and carriers. These were going to be one-way missions using the normal weapon loads, after the bombs, torpedos etc. were used the aircraft itself would become the weapon.

The aircraft carriers were, for the most part, not going to be operating close in, the USN had learned a hard lesson with the Franklin when it was hit during the Okinawa campaign. Franklin had been operating around 50 miles off the coast of Honshu when it was attacked and damaged by landbased IJN torpedo and dive bombers, not off Okinawa and not by kamikazes as many seem to believe. The carriers were also not going to be operating off of the landing zones, their primary job was going to be attacking the bases on northern Kyushu and southern Honshu while operating well off shore.

As to being exceptionally difficult to believe, that all depends on what you know, or rather think you know, about Japanese society and history, the realities that is, not the myths promulgated by the Empire of Japan and still taken as ironclad fact by the majority outside of Japan. Is it really that much harder to understand than the industrialized chattel slavery invented by the British and perfected by their colonial offspring? Or the Nazi technocrats and their machine of industrialized extermination and slave labour to support their ideology and war machine?

[NARSES2]

Jon I didn't say "believe" I said "understand". Different words, different meanings, at least in "English"

[jcf]

Jon I didn't say "believe" I said "understand". Different words, different meanings, at least in "English"

I know what you said, know what the words mean and that the meaning varies depending on usage and context and that they can be synonymous depending on usage and the context in "English". Idiom also comes into play.

My comment wasn't directed at you personally, "you" in the general sense, rather than the specific. I'm simply making an observation about common perceptions, misconceptions, misunderstandings and biases in regards to Japan, and the people. Commentary about the subject of kamikazes has tended to revolve around the hoary old "Eastern mind" vs. the "Western mind" myth. It's a false dichotomy steeped in bias and a self-deceiving sense of moral superiority. 

[Andrew Gorman]

Late to the party. but I stumbled across these Japanese decoys.  Interesting things, and could e relatively easy to whip out if you've built some balsa flying models. The stone tank could be whittled out of sign or insulation foam:
https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2016/04/bamboo-bombers-and-stone-tanksjapanese-decoys-used-in-world-war-ii/480186/

[McColm]

Does anyone know what airfields were available for the Tiger Force to use?

[kitbasher]

Does anyone know what airfields were available for the Tiger Force to use?

Okinawa.  Check the Wikipedia Op Downfall and Tiger Force pages.

[kitbasher]

Two weeks to go, fellers.  Two weeks.

[PR19_Kit]

How soon can we ask for an extension please?

[Andrew Gorman]

Am I correct that IJN aircraft did NOT have a lot of instructional stencils on them, unlike German and US planes?  Seems to be the case from what I've seen in pictures and scans of aftermarket kit decal sheets, but if you know please help me enlighten myself!

[jcf]

Am I correct that IJN aircraft did NOT have a lot of instructional stencils on them, unlike German and US planes?  Seems to be the case from what I've seen in pictures and scans of aftermarket kit decal sheets, but if you know please help me enlighten myself!

Minimal, the most important being the aircraft ID stencil which was on the port side rear.
Here's the Zero stencil, from A6M1 through A6M7 as an example:
Zero ID Stencil

[jcf]

"105mm Experimental Recoilless Gun photographed inside the Osaka Army Arsenal Factory after the end of  World War 2.

This gun was ordered for prototype production from the Osaka Army Arsenal in September 1944, and the prototype barrel was completed in February 1945. From February 11th to 17th, tests were conducted at the Irago Proving Ground to obtain basic data for recoilless operation. However, during the tests, the breech was destroyed due to leakage of gunpowder gas caused by improper sealing of the cartridge case.

From May 8th to 12th, 1945, two types of barrels were used in the corrected function tests conducted at the Irago Proving Ground: one for complete cartridges and one for separate cartridges.  Test results showed that using a 1.3 kg propellant charge yielded an initial velocity of approximately 250 m/s, with good accuracy, adequate survivability, and almost no recoil. When fired from a 6-degree firing angle on a steel plate, the average range reached 1350 m, indicating that anti-tank firing at around 1000 m was possible. The separate propellant cartridge system functioned well, but the complete projectile design suffered from poor bottom protection. However, the separate propellant cartridge system has a stepped section in the chamber for easy bullet loading.

The ammunition used was the Type 3 perforating high-explosive shell for the Type 91 10cm howitzer.

After this, tests on cartridge function, propellant type and quantity determination, accuracy, and ballistics were planned for mid-July, but it is unclear whether these were carried out.

Unlike the smoothbore barrel of the 81mm recoilless rifle, this gun used a rifled barrel with 32 borelines. It was operated by packhorse or a single-horse carriage, and a three-point fixed position was adopted during firing. The projectile was a swivel-type projectile with an explosive charge of 1.59 kg and a perforation depth of 130 mm.

In September 1944, the Ordnance Administration Headquarters issued confidential instructions regarding the 1944 maintenance, adding 250 recoilless rifles.  The artillery procurement plan for fiscal year 1945, in preparation for the defense of the Japanese mainland, included a price of 200 yen for this gun. On April 21, 1945, the Osaka Army Arsenal's First Manufacturing Plant requested the Second Section of the First Army Technical Research Institute to urgently revise the blueprints for the production of 200 guns. At the end of the war, one unfinished gun was located at the Osaka Arsenal's First Manufacturing Plant's Third Factory.

Research on this gun was scheduled to be completed in June 1945, but research on a similar "experimental 7.5 cm recoilless rifle" was also progressing, with completion scheduled for August of the same year. The projectile for the experimental 7.5 cm recoilless rifle was also a swivel-type projectile, with an explosive charge of 0.71 kg and a bore depth of 100 mm.

You cannot view this attachment.