So How Effective Were Kamikazes Anyways (Also, Sources Needed)

[Midwestern Shadows]

I'm currently discussing with an acquaintance whether or not the kamikazes of WW2 could be regarded as successful. He and I disagree on quite a few points.

His arguments:

• Kamikazes had about a 19% success rate on their attacks, thus making them more effective than any battleship of the war; this success rate was constant throughout the entire war
• more than 70 US vessels were sunk or damaged beyond repair by them
• some kamikaze pilots did survive (I conceded this point to him, but pointed out at the horrendous attrition rate regardless)
• among the attacked vessels were several sunk/damaged escort carriers and a few fleet carriers
• They were not a factor in the atomic bombings of Japan, which were instead due to casualty predictions and to intimidate the Soviets. Their fanaticism had already been seen in previous battles like Guadalcanal.
• Truman could have simply blockaded and firebombed the islands instead, but dropped the A-bombs because he wanted to close the war sooner, wanted to make sure Russia didn't divide Japan up like Korea, and wanted the Soviets to play nicer in Europe

My arguments:

• kamikaze attacks' successes decreased from about a 20% success rate to about 8-10% as the war went on due to USN adapting AA and fighter tactics to the new threat
• no fleet carrier was sunk, while escort carriers and destroyers were regarded as expendable (battleships basically ate no significant damage whatsoever)
• kamikaze pilots basically were a one-shot weapon that could not be used to increase the quality of the Japanese air corps and wasted precious pilots
• the kamikaze attacks were a key factor in the decision to nuke Japan
• the starvation plan was unacceptable due to the Allied need to make sure Japan wouldn't rise up Versailles-style and thus claim a draw/victory, not use up public support for the war, and not to extend the war and thus tie up hundreds of thousands of troops and ships (not to mention the comparative inhumanity)
• the Soviets had no conceivable way of invading Japan in 1945

Thoughts on all of this?

 

[eltf177]

You make some interesting points, and Halsey said the only surprise he got from the Japanese was the kamikazes.

Yes, they were far more effective than standard attacks by this point in the war but at a horrendous cost. Most pilots who went out didn't come back even if they didn't find a target due to poor navigation skills. It was a vicious cycle that Japan simply couldn't break...

 

[Dorknought]

This was a conventional attack:

I've heard that the A-Bombs were also the alternative to the next phase of bombing which was to deliberately target the rail network as this would halt food distribution and millions would starve very quickly.

 

[Dorknought]

the Soviets had no conceivable way of invading Japan in 1945

Most of Japan's home island forces were in the south and the Russians would invade from the north. The IJN can hardly intervene as it's out of fuel if it's still floating. Between August 18 and 31, Soviet forces invaded the North and South Kurils.

 

[mcdo]

I've heard that the A-Bombs were also the alternative to the next phase of bombing which was to deliberately target the rail network as this would halt food distribution and millions would starve very quickly.

IIRC, in Japan in the 1940s, bulk commodities, like rice and coal, were mainly shipped by barge via the canal network. The rail net was for people, and for more expensive goods. In the last few weeks of the war, the USAAF started air-dropping mines into these canals, which was already hampering rice distribution.

 

[takerma]

Compared to alternative of attacking US carrier groups they were extremely effective. You got into a plane and flew towards US force in 1944 you were dead man anyway might as well take few Americans with you.

 

[The Wizard]

Check out this video: