Not just Kamikaze: The Reality of Japanese WW2 pilots
There are many myths on Japanese pilots and the use of air power in the Pacific. From sending pilots on senseless missions, over to not giving them parachutes or protecting the aircraft, listen to Chris chat with Michael Claringbould on the myths and realities for Japanese pilots of WW2. Michael Claringbould is an expert on Japanese aviation and the South Pacific, focusing largely on the timeframe of 1942-1943.
Check out the many fantastic books by Michael Claringbould and others here:
avonmorebooks.com.au/?page=2
- Check out my books -
Ju 87 Stuka - stukabook.com
STG-44 Assault Platoon - sturmzug.com
German Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com/
Achtung Panzer? Zur Panzerwaffe der Wehrmacht - panzerkonferenz.de/
- Support -
Patreon: / milavhistory
Channel Memberships: / @militaryaviationhistory
PayPal: www.paypal.me/MilAvHis
- Recommendations -
Check out the many fantastic books by Michael Claringbould and others here:
avonmorebooks.com.au/?page=2
Mentioned during the Interview:
- Richard Dunn, Exploding Fuel Tanks
explodingfueltanks.com/
- Osamu Tagaya, Mitsubishi Type 1 Rikko ‘Betty’ Units of World War 2
ospreypublishing.com/uk/mitsu...
- John Lundstrom, The First Team (and the Guadalcanal Campaign)
www.usni.org/press/books/firs...
www.usni.org/press/books/firs...
GET 25% off John Lundstrom's books using MILAVHIS on check out!
- Social Media -
Twitter: / milavhistory
Instagram: / milaviationhistory
- Sources -
Michael Claringbould
- Timecodes -
00:00 - Introducing the Expert
00:57 - Expendable or Elite? How highly valued were pilots in Japan?
05:19 - Losing pilots on "senseless" missions (pre-Kamikaze)
14:58 - How self-sufficient were downed Japanese airmen?
18:50 - Japanese Search and Rescue - did they do it?
21:20 - Did Japanese pilots not have any parachutes?
28:27 - Armor and fuel tank protection on Japanese planes
40:20 - Reading recommendations
- Audio -
Music and Sfx from Epidemic Sound
if someone tells me if I bring a parachute I have a 1 in 10 chance of survival and if I don't I have a 0 chance I'm bringing a parachute.
Would you still if 7 or 8 of those chances where you died with a parachute meant a slow, painful death; while the death without the parachute would quick and relatively painless?
@@SavageTactical yes
@@SavageTactical Let's rephrase the probabilities like this: you've been taken prisoner by a real horror movie villain and you get a choice: Either he shoots you right then and there, or he will draw a lottery ticket. If you win, you go home. If you lose, he waterboards you for five minutes and then shoots you. Is a chance of living worth a few minutes of suffering?
Well I can imagine the thoughts of Japanese pilots in WW2. Floating down in chutes over hostile islands thinking there's 100's of angry cannibals creating excitement below waiting with their cooking pots. 🤣
@@SavageTactical There's still the chance that it might be useful (like near the coast and friendly waterways) but if I was to bail out and see nothing but jungle I'd be more likely to avoid pulling that ripcord.
The explanation of Japanese theories on the usefulness of parachutes over jungle/ocean were very enlightening, and .definitely contradicts the mainstream view of 'those crazy and suicidal Japanese'
The navy was very different from the army with the suicidal stuff until the very late stages of the war. Airplanes, warships are expensive for the Japanese. A mere Destroyer takes about a year to build. Battleships and Carriers take years and many resources to construct. The Yamato-class demanded so much steel that the Japanese government were holding steel collection drives across the country, claiming them from civilians. Training competent crews for these ships and planes take time and money. They're not easy to replace. The navy cannot afford to be wasteful, especially knowing full well the United States' industrial capacity, knowing the Americans can produce ships in great quantities. The navy cannot be wasteful. In the numerous naval engagements the IJN fought in WWII, it was not suicidal and they withdrew to save what they had left. Coral Sea they didn't press the matter further because they had already lost Light Carrier Shoho and Carrier Shokaku was in big trouble. At Midway after Nagumo's fleet carriers were ravaged, Yamamoto no longer pressed the shelling and invasion of Midway atoll. Only in late 1944 for Leyte Gulf was where you saw the IJN being actually fatalistic. Surigao Strait, Cape Engano. Kamikazes appeared for the first time. Japan couldn't afford to lose the Philippines since its loss to the Allies would be a dagger to the throat of their resource lines to and from the Dutch East Indies, Singapore, etc. They didn't have much fuel left, either. So the Philippines was the last real time the IJN could sortie en masse and fight. Meanwhile the Imperial Japanese Army did banzai charges against entrenched, prepared Allied positions to terrible, wasteful effect as early as 1942. Even US Marine commanders at Guadalcanal were confounded by the waste of troops like that.
Because of the cultural exoticism and the elements of militarist extremism it was easier to portray the Japanese as “the other.” Many of the war era animators portrayed them as almost subhuman, rodent like etc. It stands to reason that postwar historians could overlook the nuances of the Japanese Army and Navy of the era.
Very prudent when you think of it in terms of reducing the prospect of flying into the side of a mountain because you enhance your rate of climb.
The Japanese did not have the air- sea rescue system the Americans had. Even without helicopters it was better than nothing. Subs and seaplanes saved a lot of Allied airmen.
@@Chiller01 that definitely isn't true. wartime propaganda did portray the Japanese a sadistic, buck-toothed gorillas, but comparatively quickly after the war that ended because of the looming Cold War. US historians and analysts got the more nuanced look because of the US Strategic Bombing Survey (Pacific) and the popularity of former adversaries like Saburō Sakai.
I sat in cockpits of a lot of Japanese aircraft at lakunai airstrip in 1972. Most memorable was a Betty still standing on its landing gear. Still had green camo and the hinomaru painted on the wings.
Very interesting chat. I recall a story form the book "Fire in the sky" In which one allied airman went down a few kilometers from his base in New Guinea and it took him a week to get back to the airstrip trough the dense jungle.
Yes, I remember that in the book!
You would like kangaroo squadron, b17 s based in Northern Australia.
Really great chat! It's interesting how often an "esoteric" book with the not terribly marketable title of "Exploding Fuel Tanks" gets recommended really highly when conversations on this channel turn to the topic.
It is the defacto gold standard book on armor and fuel tank protectors on WW2 planes. Can not recommend it enough
What an incredible discussion! Absolutely fascinating re: Japanese considerations on armor and parachutes. Makes perfect sense, too. Thanks so much for another great video!
This was an excellent chat! (I promise I'm not just saying that because he hits on many of the things I constantly rant about myself.)
Thank you for covering the Pacific side of world war II aviation. Japanese aviation rarely gets much coverage and it was nice to get this kind of detailed perspective. I hope in the future you can cover some of the Japanese later war designs which were quite innovative but because of man and material shortages could not achieve their potential.
P0
well, losta historians don't get into the Japanese official records due to the language issues; same same with Japanese Unit histories or personal memoirs. That and may land based air units in New Guinea and SWPac ended up dying to the last man and their unit records destroyed so they left nothing for the future historian except for any folks who got evac'd due to illness or wounds prior to 'the bitter end'.
As someone who would like parachutes on an A380 😂 I found the discussion on parachutes fascinating. It all made logical sense But I always understood a lot of aircrew did survive bailouts from the allied side so maybe not the best decision - going from no chance to slim chance still feels better.
Idd, he made no sense at all to me, sure you might get stuck in a tree but i still want the chance to try and live.
One factor to consider is that Japanese Imperial culture considered pilots are warriors, for whom death was expected, and not a fate to be avoided at almost any cost. To the West a pilot was an asset, to be conserved at any cost that made economic 'sense', in the logistical context of the term. This is not to say the Imperial Japanese were indifferent to attrition. But their approach to it was different than that of the West. The West's greater emphasis on pilot, and aircrew, conservation made a huge difference. To the Imperial Japanese operators were tools to be used and expended. To the West operators were capital, to be used as needed, but to be conserved as much as at all possible.
Mmmm... aircrew of Bomber Command and Eighth Air Force suffered terrible attrition. In France in 1944/45 a posting to a Tiffie or Hurribomber ground attack squadron was tantamount to a death sentence.
In WW1 NZ had the highest casualties per capita and the Russian empire came second. In WW2, the USSR had the highest casualties per capita and NZ came second. The greater proportion of WW2 NZ casualties were aircrew.
I agree to that, but need to add a bit to the thinking. The issue here is that lost aircrew was terrible for propaganda and morale in the west. In Japan, people were more willing to accept the death of the warrior, so the death of aircrew had less of an effect to the morale of the fighting group. Another big factor that was not touched in the video was of course the resources. The Japanese simply did not have large numbers of long range flying boats to search and search and search and fish aircrew.
A simply superb interview. The explanations regarding parachutes and survival rates and strategies were very new to me. Lots of things now make sense now that I know more. Wonderful interview Chris.
Excellent interview. I have several books by Mr. Claringbould. He and Henry Sakaida have done so much to shed more light on the Japanese side of the air war.
Chris: Absolutely superb content, as usual. It's no surprise that the myths addressed in this excellent interview turn out to be simplistic generalizations that do not reflect the far more complicated reality of the South Pacific war-a kind of warfare that was unique in all of history, and required its participants to rapidly adapt. The Japanese were not idiots; however, their adaptability was limited by cultural factors and a scarcity of resources. Kudos for debunking the mythology. 😎
The Lundstrom books amazed me for their detail. Memory says he documented down to individual dogfights, and focused on naval air vs naval air. The difference for bailing out over Europe and the south Pacific had never occurred to me and does throw new light on the decision to not bring a parachute. There are plenty of stories of Allied crew bailing out and never being seen again; I wonder if anyone has ever documented the difference in survival rates of bailed-out aircrew in Europe vs the Pacific.
Absolutely, if the Japanese got a hold of you after bailing out, you were not going to have a good time. Especially not if you were a bomber crew. Kyoto University Hospital has a particularly grizzly history for what they did to bailed bomber crews…
"I wonder if anyone has ever documented the difference in survival rates of bailed-out aircrew in Europe vs the Pacific." I think one problem trying to do such is a study is it is really hard to document how many crews or individual pilots bailed out. I suspect a study might make a reasonable guess over Europe, but over the Pacific and specifically over Japan is almost impossible. You could look at an individual incident like at the Battle of Midway where; with the exception of Torpedo Squadron 8, the rest of the U.S.S. Hornet's air wing flew in the wrong direction and never found the enemy. The pilots and crew didn't bail out, but a number were forced to ditch. We know many of those planes never made it back to the Hornet and how many air crew were rescued, so we also know how many were just swallowed up by the vastness of Pacific.
Indeed! Lundstrom's 'First Team' books (both of 'em) are great and of course, the guest, Michael Claringbould has published some excellent books too.
Why would a Japanese pilot intrinsically know how to survive in a jungle? Certainly those who grew up in cities would not. And there are few subtropical jungles in the main islands of Japan.
@@miguelservetus9534 - You are correct, but not just Japanese pilots, Japanese soldiers weren't prepared either. I read that during the war there was a Japanese propaganda campaign that claimed their soldiers were experts in jungle fighting; that it was their natural environment and this would give them a huge advantage against American and Australian soldiers. The Japanese adapted as well as they could, but this so-called "natural advantage" simply wasn't true. Plus, though the statistics we have are sketchy, it appears their rates of malaria infection and getting other fun tropical diseases like dengue fever were much higher than in Allied soldiers. Also, some American Marine units which participated in practice maneuvers and wargames in the swamps of Louisiana had better practical training for operating in places like Guadalcanal than the Japanese Army
An excellent discussion. Thank you for increasing my perspective. I think some crew protection questions need to be tied to available engine power.
This is remarkable! I've read about some of this stuff, but to have it so conveniently condensed and presented in one place is extremely helpful. Thank you!
That myth of the flimsiness of Japanese aircraft may have been a pre-war Royal Navy myth that took root among those who didn’t serve in the East. Interesting video on *Armoured Carriers* YT channel with interviews of the survivors of Force Z. The gunners on those ships thought of the Japanese as living in paper houses, sailing paper warships and flying paper planes. They really thought that they would rip through Japanese aircraft and ships no trouble and weren’t concerned by the lack of RAF air cover pre-battle. Direct encounter with the Japanese bombers changed their minds pretty quickly. It should be clear that these myths did not extend to the Royal Navy officers who ran the ships.
Well, the Zero really was very lightly armored, I think? So it wasn't entirely just a myth.
@@blakewinter1657 Armor has very little to do with the structural integrity of an aircraft, especially in fighters it is designed most of all to protect the pilot from harm. With all of these myths there is some truth of course, having a great priority for range and speed in its design, the Zero was a very light aircraft. This came in part at the expense of structural strength, though it did make use of some very advanced metallurgy for the time. The key is to note that 'less structural strength' does not mean 'made of paper', Zeroes often returned to base with plenty of damage sustained.
@@DrFatalChunkAlso, to the credit of the Zero’s designers, it genuinely IS better to avoid getting shot in the first place while flying a fighter aircraft in particular, as even a well protected aircraft will become heavily crippled by battle damage. What was less recognized is that it was worth losing a few more planes due to lost agility if it meant saving more _pilots_ from being KIA. I don’t think this was a deliberate case of the designers undervaluing the life of a pilot, either, although the less intensive search and rescue of the Japanese air services compared to the US certainly _did_ factor into the lesser trickleback, although even there, the Japanese didn’t have quite the same luxury of fuel and resources to spare on such intensive efforts ALSO also, it wasn’t really that much more fragile in structure than what could be considered “average” for a fighter introduced in 1940. In fact, due to its wing being built as a single structure rather than 2 separate pieces, it had a somewhat _higher_ load factor to work with than average. It’s important to consider that the main adversary for the Zero that it is compared to, the F4F, is built like a freight train, with enough redundancies to build an extra plane out of
I think some of that comes from not having self sealing gas tanks, which was a serious problem. In the first year not all American aircraft had them either, but by the end of the first year they had become ubiquitous on American fighters.
@DrFatalChunk lol...I'll agree, but disagree... the Navy aircraft were definitely built with weight in mind but there are many stores of the pilots pulling to many g's and the wings coming off, while American planes could push alot more g's... of course flying faster, you have to push significantly more g's just to maintain the same circle a slower plane can do with less g's... also the Japanese planes where slower then most allied planes, and they could not maintain speed in tight turns, so once the allies learned those issues they started the hit and run tactic(what ever it was called) and as planes got better as long as they could turn in and maintain high g's, it became easier and easier to break contact when needed... as for coming home, have you seen some of the damage done to WW1 airplanes, usually you had to destroy the engine or kill the pilot, and most of those where "paper planes"...
These interview videos and livestreams have been great! Getting real experts like Claringbould and Douglas to speak on these subjects is amazing!
WOW! Outstanding presentation! Thank you Michael for sharing your knowledge with us!
Long ago I knew a former B-24 pilot, ETO. He told me that initially the air crews were told to drop out of their parachute harnesses if bailing out over water. That thinking changed, he said, when it was realized judging one's height was difficult over water without landmarks, and dropping out too early would cause a fatal fall. The new recommendation, he said, was to hit the parachute harness release the instant they hit the water. He also was shot down and captured in Italy in 1945. Before that happened, he said, air crews were told there was little need to try to escape if captured, because Allied victory was assured and captivity would be relatively brief. Which he said turned out to be true.
This is outstandingly thought provoking. Thanks for the interview and sharing it with us.
Absolutely wonderful interview and info/thoughts here, thanks to both of you! 25:36 That's really neat, it's exceptionally rare to see good photos of the flexible version of the Type 99 cannon. :O
Fascinating talk, really learnt a lot and thought provoking! I hope you do more with Mr Claringbould.
Another great video Chris, great to connect with another great author. Knowledge is a great thing if it is shared. Keep up the good work and best wishes from NZ
Great interview.
That’s an incredible Reservoir of Knowledge, with deep Technical details. Great script, great production.
Super interesting discussion, it gave me a lot of insight into the tradeoffs involved in aircraft design versus realities on the frontline.
Thanks Chris. Great content. As ever.
Excellent presentation. I enjoy this type of content.
Really enjoyed this episode and exploring the operational context and some of the reasons why.
do more of these please. fascinating
Great guest. I really like his books and your channel!
Chris, Michael - very informative, thanks!
Great show...I really enjoyed your guest.
Chris, another really excellent production! well done Sir!!
Great interview, and keep up the good work.
I think these type of discussions with authors are very enlightening and interesting. That 45 minutes went fast. I soaked up every minute. Thanks for the video!
Excellent episode! Michael Claringbould provides lots of interesting information.
This was a great and multi aspect discussion of a often over simplified topic!
Really interesting information, thank you Chris and Michael!
Well done Chris, I already knew about Michael, but it is the first time I actually see him speaking. And yes myths are everywhere as usual, mostly because many people don't read the original sources because the language, so they assume completely different ideas. I am looking forward to the next video with Michael.
Brilliant talk with Seminole sources, incalculably valuable references for interpretation of historic events, thanks mate.
Excellent discussion guys
Extremely interesting discussion! Would love to learn more.
This was a great episode. Great guest. Thank you.
Brillant post, many myths dispelled. Many thanks
Great video Chris, this is very impressive. It is always god to dispel the myths about the Pacific Theater of WWII.
Excellent information and speaker
I've read a good chunk of Claringbould's book on the F4U vs A6M book he did for the Osprey "vs series", and I found it very informative in spite of being a less serious format, lots of respect for his work!
Great video as usual!
Does anybody have the figure of approximately how many pilots did the flying schools in Japan produce a year at the beginning of the war? I know the numbers were insufficient to their needs, but I wanted to quantify by how much. Does anybody know if there were differences between the Army and the Navy in this regard?
Years ago 1979 an author wrote a book about the training of Japanese Airmen. I can't remember the book title or author but he gave grades to each graduating class. A-1941, B-1942, and soon. Sorry for being so vague. Does anyone remember this book?
You don't get enough credit for your work! Both personal work and professional work. Your English is better than many people I know who were born and raised with the language! Both your grammar and syntax are absolutely spotless! I've been watching for years now, and you've only gotten better! Most people on earth only know one language, but you chose to both pursue and perfect a foreign tongue. Good on you, man! I'd say that I hope to be further impressed by your dedication, but I know I will be. Keep up the good work! I'm rooting for you!
This is a criminally underrated video. I went into this with so many incorrect assumptions and beliefs and I feel like I learned more in less than an hour than I had for years prior. Thank you for this brilliant interview, love from California, USA
ESD is today known as 7075 aluminum. It’s a very strong/stiff aluminum alloy commonly used in aerospace today.
Very nice chat. I wish though... that there would come up pictures every time a plane was mentioned.. and not just some times :)
The idea of intentionally planning to ditch fixed landing gear aircraft vs having the aircrew bail out. You know you are going to lose the A/C anyway
Really enjoyed this. 👍🏻👍🏻
Fascinating. Thank you!
Outstanding interview, well done. Necessity is the mother of invention, and desperation is the wicked step mother. As the war progresses, because of the weakness of their industrial base the Japanese quickly became desperate. There but for grace would go many of us in similar situations. Where did you find Claringbould? He is worth his weight in gold.
Great discussion. My introduction to this topic was years ago when I read Fire in the Sky, an American author I believe. Focus on the air was in New Guinea. Of particular note, the development of armament and how the US went with heavy mgs for the most part for fighters while the Japanese initially armed with 7.7 mgs and slow firing low velocity 20mm cannon. I think part of the myth of not wearing parachutes stemmed from Allied reporting of Kamikaze pilots not needing them for one way suicide missions. The Allies built on this saying how Japan did not value their aircrew etc.
The great Japanese ace Saburo Sakai has said, more than once, that some Japanese pilots did not fly with parachutes because they felt it hindered them from "becoming one with their aircraft."
Excellent video!
Always interesting, thank you.
Good stuff, very intresting points
enjoyed that,cheers
A VERY good interview technique. This is a first for me Subscribed 🌴Rob in the USVI.
Excellent work.
Not carrying a parachute, while a parachute might not save your life, it will in more situations than not increase your odds or options. More than logic i think this one can be ascribed to "death is lighter than a feather", while it certainly also can be backed by logical reasoning, and f.ex parachuting into the Pacific Ocean could ofcourse just be torturing yourself; its f.ex also down to whether you consider being saved by the opposition force to be saved.
Chris is the greatest historian the world has ever seen!!! You’re numero uno Chris!!!!
Awsome and interesting as allways!
Excellent, Chris. I love hearing from folks like Michael Xlaringbould who have deepl;y researched their area of interest. One of the points he made rings true with other historians of the Pacific was, like Jon Parshall, in that dearth of primary sources from the Japanese archives makes "our" history terribly incomplete and sometimes wildly inacurrate. Not so much a case of access to ducuments but the high cost of having WW2 era Japanese (which I understand is different than modern) translated into English. I suspect that in the decades to come there may some interesting changes in interpretation of motives, strategy and events once a more balanced set of evidence can be brought to bear on the conflict.
Strong work, Chris
Really enjoyed this.
That was a fantastic roundup of the era in a very lonely part of the world if you are shot down. Hope we get to hear more from Mr Claringbold.
Very interesting. As a baby boomer born in the US, I was only exposed to the movies, comic books and "documentaries" told from a simplified American point of view. For example,I had never heard of the involvement Australian and NZ armed forced in the Pacific until a few years ago. Kokoda Track, Milne Bay? What's that? Likewise, US (and for that matter British) documentaries always described the assault on Juno beach as having been done by "the British". So, the common myths combine oversimplification with feel-good nationalism on all sides. History is much more complicated and interesting than that. This video is a refreshing antidote to historical caricature.
Great aviation art as background there.
Visiting the Imperial War Museum in 1982, I was really impressed by how tight the headspace inside the Zero cockpit was. Never had the chance to compare it to contemprary fighter cockpits though.
Duralumin alloy, mentioned in passing in this video, was a Japanese metallurgical innovation I've seen mentioned fairly often in WWII histories. It's been a stone in my shoe for years. I've seen no explanation of what made it better; and if it actually was superior for combat aircraft, I've seen no explanation for why didn't the Allies just copy it.
Duralumin was pretty wellestablished at the time, originating from Germany. Japan used something referred to as super duramin or 7075. I don't know for sure why the allies didn't replicate it, but part of it could be that it takes time to replicate alloys and to make it usable, along with scaling up production. It took Britain and France about 2 decades to begin using duramin for instance.
@@09csr Wikipedia says 7075 was reverse engineered by Alcoa in 1943.
Too flimsy.
Only the Zero, or at least the Japanese Navy, used this peculiar alloy on the spar. It "crystallised" or otherwise deteriorated on its own over a fairly short time (meaning a very few years, perhaps reacting to dissimilar uncoated contacting metals) , which is why you did see a Ki-84 still flying with its WWII spar in 1972, while all Zeroes stopped flying within a few years of WWII being over. Maybe it was simply a matter of a missing protective coating for dissimilar touching metals, which War expendients cut corners on, but apparently the Japanese version of that particular metal had an intrinsic problem with it... It is a cloudy issue, but may have been unique to the Zero, and certainly did not affect Japanese Army planes, which only corroded through neglect and exposure, in the way usual for all aircrafts.
Fantastic discussion, very interesting. In his point about going to sources from the opposing side, I think this might be the case of one of my favourite books and the first I ever read on WWII. It's called fight for the sky, by Douglas Bader, with a heap of contributions from other pilots/servicemen throughout. You can (as I did initially) walk away from that book thinking that the allied aircraft, specifically the Spitfire were streets ahead ofthe German aircraft that they faced. The reality is quite different it turns out. Tbh though, they aren't the first pilots to think that they had the best fighter out there.
@42:19 When I was younger, I was interested in studying about Japanese culture. Even as an undergraduate at the University of Michigan, for those interested in the subject we were *required* to study the Japanese language for 3 years at an absolute minimum, but 4 years was better. It was my understanding that if you were unable to work with primary sources in Japanese, then you really didn't understand much of the history or culture at all. If I were to read a book about Japanese WWII planes and pilots, I would expect nothing less than information gleaned from primary Japanese sources from the author.
Michael Claringbould’s books are excellent.
Excellent
What a fantastic guest!
My favorite quote on self sealing fuel tanks came from an Apache pilot He couldnt get a shot but wanted to aid his guys on the ground so he made him self a target getting so low an rpg didnt arm before it hit Long story short he was given a round that was pulled out of the fuel tanks as a keep sake
Very good summary. Especially going back to primary sources rather than myth or hearsay.
Bismarck good to see ya!
Very interesting and gives a real insight into the Japanese mentality. Chris, do you recommend any books on Luftwaffe pilot selection and training during WW2? Would be very useful for a little project I'm working on at the moment.
Further reading in contemporary histories of the war in the Pacific highly recommend, particularly on the treatment of the people in areas occupied by the Japanese.
This is such a good discussion
Remote Papuan chieftain to his village on seeing Val pilot parachuting to earth, “Hope you guys feel like Japanese tonight.”
Great video debunking the myths or at least explaining the perspectives of the other side. It is important to challenge long held myths and incorrect assumptions. And it doesn't help that so much information is lost to the wider anglo-sphere, simply because of the language barrier, so that it can be extremely long before those assumptions are even challenged and corrected.
Great conversation. In a nutshell: trade-offs. Declaration of personal bias: I'm a numbers person. He did well providing the number of Val crew rescued after the Rabi mission, the reason to replace 250kg bombs with 60kg, altitude gain, etc. I would have liked to hear detail on the number of total downed pilots and crew rescued. Was it 50%? 80%? 20%? We're told many were rescued by destroyers. How many is many? Granted, many died in air combat, chose not to use parachutes, perished after crash landing, etc. Still, something like 'of the x number of fighters and bombers downed in '42 and '43 comprising y number of pilots and aircrew, z% were rescued' would aid understanding. An example of a number-rich document is Chapter 15, 'Air Sea Rescue' of _Army Air Forces in World War II Vol. VII: Services Around the World._ (Available online.) It's not perfect, but there's a lot of meat on the bone. Re Japanese documentation, he's right. I spend a lot of time looking for info in Japanese *online* and it's a slog, though my subject of interest is a bit more esoteric than fighting machines and battles. It pales in comparison to the abundance of info in English *online* , though there is a lot poor info. And always worth checking out if one source keeps appearing again and again in others' citations. Many Japanese books are not translated. Some are very expensive; one book I really wanted is about 250,000 yen - more than USD 2000. An unorthodox source is the Japanese modelling community - I stumbled on that. They are keen researchers who want to know anything and everything. They visit the libraries, find obscure documentation, etc.
Splendid stuff
Great discussion , very informative . Interesting view that the Japanese had more awareness about the vagaries of Pacific weather then the Americans . This was borne out on the 25/1/44 when 23 F4U Corsairs of Marine squadron VMF -422 left their base to relocate in the Gilbert Islands . They ran into a storm and 22 ditched becoming completely lost. A number of pilots drowned. During the Okinawa campaign the squadron shot down 15 Japs with a cost of 10 Corsairs , though not all due to E/A. Another topic broached was Parachutes , according to British author Max Hastings during the bombing of Japan by B-29's , the Mustang escorts were at the maximum range to be effective. Scores , he cites over a hundred pilots baled out after running out of fuel. The reason that the silk was better then ditching was that the P-51 was a bad swimmer. Unfortunately lots of parachutes failed to open , for reasons unknown.
Regarding bailing out of the Betty bomber, wasn't going out the bomb bay an option or was that part of the plane sealed off from the crew?
It wasn't integral with the interior of the fuselage. Unlike the B-17 and very much like the Lancaster, the bomb bay could not be accessed in flight. As Mr. Claringbould said, you had the side door, the upper panels over the pilots and the dorsal firing position. A fourth bailing exit was created when the conical glazing was removed from the tail gun position later on. That is, if you managed to pass by the large 20mm cannon and its mount. Cheers.
@@The_Modeling_Underdog Thanks!
@@1977Yakko Most welcome, mate. We're all learning. Cheers.
That was a good one.
From a happy subscriber damm good video 2 very big thumbs up
If "Exploding" is an action verb, the title gets even scarier. A how-to book ...
facinating
A very interesting discussion in the difference in Japanese and Allied philosophy in aircraft construction & pilot protection. One important item not mentioned in the presentation is how this difference is manifested in aircrew losses. The Japanese suffered a higher rate of aircrew losses than the Allies even during the period when both Japanese air arms were at their height of power and the Allies were their weakest. It is very interesting to read how Allied pilots survived either in heavily damaged aircraft that returned to base or from personal survival gear to fight again. The Japanese, by the end of 1943, had lost a great many highly skilled pilots that they could not replace. While it is good to examine how the philosophy of a military impacts equipment and docturine you can not ignore how that philosophy effects the outcome of a conflict. Regarding the P-39 example given in the presentation. While the P'39 was heavy, especially with the 37mm cannon, it's issue with high altitude performance was due to its Allison engine, which lacked a supercharger. The issue with the Allison also limited the performance of the P-40 and early P-51s.
In my humble opinion, survival bias kicks in to some degree. A zero that survived having its tanks holed was extremely unlikely to reach home, considering the good range a Zero had. Also, post war japanese were less inclined to write books about their experiences, having lost the war.
@juslitor You are not wrong. That is the point I was trying to make that the Japanese philosophy on aircraft lead to a substantial loss of aircrew. I was fortunate to meet a former Japanese fighter pilot in the late 80s that wrote a book on his experiences.
Interesting how Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service was trained by the British, while the Imperial Japanese Army Air Service was trained by the French.