Re: To Hook or not to Hook
Posted By: Allan Alsleben <mailto:Wildcat42@AOL.com?subject=Re: To Hook or not to Hook>
Date: Friday, 16 March 2001, at 10:23 p.m.
In Response To: (James F. Lansdale)
Jim,
I too cannot verify whether arrestor gear was removed or not on land-based units. However, I've been advised from sources in Japan that, that was left up to the discretion of the local commander. The "Gear" was sent back to Yokosuka on the next available ship. I've made a request to the Academy for copies of regulations of:
1 - Arrestor Gear applications for Carrier and Land-Based
2 - The definitive on Air Unit ID for CarDiv 2
3 - And regulations on guest crews operating host's aircraft.
I have a partial response, but not adequate for submission to the board.
Al
Re: NO Tailhooks???!!!
Posted By: Jon Parshall <mailto:jonp@combinedfleet.com?subject=Re: NO Tailhooks???!!!>
Date: Friday, 16 March 2001, at 9:29 a.m.
In Response To: Re: NO Tailhooks???!!! (James F. Lansdale)
I'm not at all a plane guy, and therefore not in a position to argue the finer points with folks like you and
Lundstrom. I have to say that on the face of it, this seems really weird to me, too; almost more trouble than it was worth.
Mark Horan mentioned to me that the 6th airgroup planes may actually have been disassembled, but I am beginning to think that can't be correct. Given the reduction in Akagi's air wing size by the time of Midway (she was carrying a grand total of 61 aircraft on 4 June), there was sufficient room in the upper hangars for those birds, I think. There's certainly nothing to be gained by disassembling them if there is sufficient space in the upper hangars, I think--doing so merely makes more work for them to be sent off to garrison Midway.
On the flip, if that shotai of 6th Air Group guys *did* actually fly Akagi aircraft, then that implies that their own aircraft were not available, for whatever reason.
Hmmmm....
-jon parshall-
Imperial Japanese Navy Page
http://www.combinedfleet.com
Re: NO Tailhooks???!!!
Posted By: Allan Alsleben <mailto:Wildcat42@AOL.com?subject=Re: NO Tailhooks???!!!>
Date: Friday, 16 March 2001, at 2:16 p.m.
In Response To: Re: NO Tailhooks???!!! (Jon
Parshall)
Hello Jon,
According to Naval Regulations set down by the Navy Ministry in 1932, NO aircraft could operate to or from an aircraft carrier without arrestor gear.
Source - History Section, National Institute for Defense Studies.
However, this regulation was relaxed to those air groups operating from land bases. That was left up to the local commander.
Al
Re: NO Tailhooks???!!!
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: NO Tailhooks???!!!>
Date: Friday, 16 March 2001, at 9:55 a.m.
In Response To: (Jon
Parshall)
Hi Jon
Actually, what usually happened in such cases, was that the carriers "packed" whatever complement of aircraft they could with a certain number being assigned to the air unit being ferried or for an air unit already in the field.
I do not think these aircraft were any different than the other Zeros. I think the question might better be, "Did any Zeros carry the No.6 Kokutai code on the tail or not?"
I do not know.
I believe No. 2 Koku Sentai carriers
(JUNYO ?) also carried some of the No.6 Kokutai aircraft and their pilots also saw action in the Aleutians. Perhaps Mark, Rick, or Larry can help out here.
FWIW
Jim Lansdale
Re: NO Tailhooks???!!!
Posted By: Jon Parshall <mailto:jonp@combinedfleet.com?subject=Re: NO Tailhooks???!!!>
Date: Friday, 16 March 2001, at 10:12 a.m.
In Response To: Re: NO Tailhooks???!!! (James F. Lansdale)
Yes, they did, apparently. Mark says that Ryujo carried 6, and Junyo carried 9 6th Kokutai aircraft.
-jon-
CarDiv 2 Codes & Arrestor Gear
Posted By: Allan Alsleben <mailto:Wildcat42@AOL.com?subject=CarDiv 2 Codes & Arrestor Gear>
Date: Friday, 16 March 2001, at 2:29 p.m.
To the list,
According to Naval Regulations set down by the Navy Ministry and later amended in 1936, The Codes were assigned to the ship, not to the reassign4ed flagship. Those codes were permanent until changed by the Navy Ministry. That regulation was in place in June 1942.
Arrestor Gear was a must also for any kind of operations from an aircraft carrier. Naval Regulations forbade such operations without arrestor gear (November 1932). This regulation was also in place for June 1942.
All 6th Ku aircraft aboard CarDiv 1 and CarDiv 2 were not crated. It would take too long to assemble and bore site guns, even under ideal circumstances. Iwakuni Ku flew the aircraft aboard the carriers and were stowed below decks. While they may not have been fully armed and serviced for combat, it would take little time to do so if the cirmcumstances warranted.
Source - The above is from the National Institute for Defense Studies - Kitazawa Noritaka
Al
Re: Not necessarily
Posted By: Mark E. Horan <mailto:mhoran@snet.net?subject=Re: Not necessarily>
Date: Friday, 16 March 2001, at 4:51 p.m.
In Response To: CarDiv 2 Codes & Arrestor Gear (Allan
Alsleben)
It is certainly true that the 6th AG aircraft were flown aboard the carriers for the Midway Operation. And I won't agrue that aircraft "operating" from carriers, or landing on them, had to have arrestor gear. However ...
As to arrestor gear, perhaps the key phase is "operating". Transported aircraft were not intended to "operate" from the carriers transporting them - them simply departed from them. At Coral Sea the Zeros launched from Zuikaku and Shokaku were sent off without arrestor gear.
As to assembly state, I certainly never used the work "crated" in any discussion. The terminology was "partially disassembled", which they would have had to have been, as I understand the diagrams in my possession, to fit in the "storage" hangers. This is just how the process was discribed to me - the aircraft were flown aboard , brought below, partially dissembled, and stored until such time as they could be brought into the main
hamgers, resassembled, and flown off to Midway.
For futher thoughts on the 6th AG planes, see my post just above this one.
Re: Not necessarily *PIC*
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: Not necessarily *PIC*>
Date: Friday, 16 March 2001, at 6:19 p.m.
In Response To: Re: Not necessarily (Mark E. Horan)
Mark
You wrote, "The terminology was 'partially disassembled', which they would have had to have been, as I understand the diagrams in my possession, to fit in the 'storage' hangers."
The Japanese did not "dis-assemble" the Zero in the sense we think of! Normally they were sent assembled, even when shipped on smaller Marus one or two at a time (see below).
"If" they were dis-assembeled, the divison would have been behind the cockpit area at the break line between the forward wing, engine, and cockpit area separated from the rear fuselage and tail. There would have been no logical reason to remove the factory-applied tailhooks since the factory probably had no prior knowledge of what type of unit (i.e. land-based or carrier based) a given Zero was intended to be shipped too!
IMO
Jim Lansdale
Re: 6th Air Group
Posted By: Tom Hall <mailto:Hall023038@aol.com?subject=Re: 6th Air Group>
Date: Monday, 19 March 2001, at 7:47 p.m.
In Response To: Re: 6th Air Group Color Schemes (Jon
Parshall)
Dear Mr. Parshall,
The passage I remembered is actually in Volume 7
at page 64. It puts Kaneko and six of the 6th
Ku planes on Akagi, Namai and ten planes of the
6th aboard Kaga, and three planes aboard each
of Soryu and Hiryu. It puts another twelve
planes on their way to Dutch Harbor. It names Kaneko, Okazaki, and Kurouchi as
getting airborne. It then confuses the torpedo
attacks by the B-26s and TBFs, which I believe
was a failing of one of the older Japanese
books, also, and says these three Japanese
pilots each shot down two B-26s. This is
impossible, because only two of four B-26s
went down.
If you don't read Japanese, Volume 4 may not
be of much interest. It contains articles
on the Dolittle raid and Coral Sea, also.
I liked the early-warning info in it about
the Dolittle raid. I also learned that
Hideki Shingo went looking for Hornet with
twelve Zekes and some bombers from Kaga. On another of your postings, who is Hyodo
Nisohachi and why would he be in a position
to know the tail markings for planes at
Midway?
Re: 6th Air Group
Posted By: Jon Parshall <mailto:jonp@combinedfleet.com?subject=Re: 6th Air Group>
Date: Tuesday, 20 March 2001, at 7:54 a.m.
In Response To: Re: 6th Air Group (Tom Hall)
Hyodo Nisohachi is an author of several books on Japanese aviation ordnance. He has been feeding me information on Japanese carrier operations and re-arming procedures, and it has checked out very well with what I have already learned from
NavTech, ATIG, and other sources, so I credit him as being reliable in at least that field. I doubt, though, that he is the Final Word on the Midway tail codes--I just noted it as being another data point coming from a source that has been good for me thus far. I am very interested in what Al Alsleben has to say with regards to the statements from the History Section at the Defense Archives.
Posted By: David_Aiken <mailto:David_Aiken@hotmail.com?subject=Re: IJA Chutai vs IJN Buntai>
Date: Monday, 19 March 2001, at 6:26 a.m.
In Response To: Re: Kaga Hangar Stowage Diagram (James F. Lansdale)
Aloha All,
At the unit level, the operative term for a nine aircraft unit is different Army versus Navy. The Army used Chutai while the Navy used Buntai; just like the US Army rank is Captain and the US Navy rank is Lieutenant. At Navy Imperial Headquarters in Tokyo, the IJ Navy used the IJ Army term, probably so interservice communication would be understood.
So when Mr Lansdale spoke of an extra Chutai, there was not any IJ Army planes on the Kaga he was referencing, but thinks in the language at Tokyo level.
HTH,
David Aiken
Re: IJA Chutai vs IJN Buntai
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: IJA Chutai vs IJN Buntai>
Date: Monday, 19 March 2001, at 8:53 a.m.
In Response To: Re: IJA Chutai vs IJN Buntai
(David_Aiken)
I am sorry Shinjuwan Sakusen Sensei David
Translated documents from IJNAF sources makes it perfectly clear that tactical formations were frequently called Hiko Shotai (3), Hiko Chutai (9), and Hiko Daitai (18-27). Particularly in the first two years of action. Translated administrative orders made much more frequent use of the term hiko buntai (in case you did not know!).
I will be most pleased to post these actual translated documents and orders (this week) of which you are obviously not aware. One also needs to reference the recent publication of IJA/NAF Organization in World War II to see a more detailed picture of the whole. These terms are also made clear in the Japanese Naval Order of Battle published in October 1945 by MIS and available through the
NHRC.
But, thank you for your feedback.
FWIW
Jim Lansdale
Re: IJA /NAF Organizational Terms
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: IJA /NAF Organizational Terms>
Date: Monday, 19 March 2001, at 9:40 a.m.
In Response To: Re: IJA Chutai vs IJN Buntai (Jon
Parshall)
Hi Jon
I am at work at the moment. I will get onto this project throughout the week and get the material organized and posted for general reference as a FAQ.
Much of this information is available in a book by Hippocrene (sp) Press which published a British wartime intelligence document which goes into great detail on both the IJAAF and the IJNAF organization. This book has all the unit terminology listed both for tactical and administrative purposes.
BTW, I also failed to mention that the term Hiko Daitai was replaced and by March 1944, this term was replaced with a new term (and orgaization) called a Hikotai (not to be confused with the term hikokitai, which was used in an entirely different way).
IHTH
Jim Lansdale
Re: IJA /NAF Organizational Terms
Posted By: David_Aiken <mailto:David_Aiken@hotmail.com?subject=Re: IJA /NAF Organizational Terms>
Date: Monday, 19 March 2001, at 12:29 p.m.
In Response To: (James F. Lansdale)
Aloha Mr Lansdale,
Believe it or not, Buntai is the term used by the NAVY while Chutai is used by the Army IN THE LOWER ECHELONS where it counted...the HIGHER ranks in Tokyo used Chutai alone. I've reposted this MANY times, but one among us has no ears???
Gomen nasai,
David Aiken
Re: IJA /NAF Organizational Terms
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: IJA /NAF Organizational Terms>
Date: Monday, 19 March 2001, at 2:09 p.m.
In Response To: Re: IJA /NAF Organizational Terms
(David_Aiken)
Aloha Shijuwan Sakusen Sensei David
You write, "Believe it or not, Buntai is the term used by the NAVY while Chutai is used by the Army IN THE LOWER ECHELONS where it counted...the HIGHER ranks in Tokyo used Chutai alone. I've reposted this MANY times, but one among us has no ears???"
Source/s please!
I will post all four of my official sources of IJNAF terminology which were written contemporaneously by the Japanese military and/or official Allied military agencies (such as ATIS and MIS) on this web site. Copies of which are available to researchers at USAFHRC, NHRC, and NARA. At the moment, I have several file drawers of Xerox documentation and certainly hundreds of feet of microfilm to dig through to get additonal background on the subject, but that which I post should suffice those so interested in this
esoteria.
After such posting, our site members may choose to use their eyes and their brains to sift what was is historically accurate from that which has become unsubstantiated hearsay.
Again, I wish to thank you for posting such provocative material and making very entertaining contributions.
FWIW
Jim Lansdale
Buntai, Kanpan, Johriku...
Posted By: UCHIDA, Katsuhiro <mailto:2000gt-b@mui.biglobe.ne.jp?subject=Buntai, Kanpan, Johriku...>
Date: Monday, 19 March 2001, at 1:30 p.m.
In Response To: Re: IJA /NAF Organizational Terms
(David_Aiken)
Hello everybody!
Please allow me to describe the additional information.
In Navy, ALL kinds of troops formed BUNTAI like many people stated here.
Gunnery, Torpedo, Sailing, Aviation, Paymaster, Medicine, Engineering.......
Even Medical officers were called "Buntaicho" or "Buntaishi" by others. [Their chief was called Gun'i-cho in Kantai (fleet), Sentai (flottila or division), Kokutais, ships (battle ships, cruisers, carriers...), destroyer/submarine groups, Rikusentai (Naval Landing Force), Tsuushintai (communication troops)...]
As for aviation, just differeent LITTLE bit.
Hikotais (including "Tokusetsu Hikotai" since 1944) included a couple of Buntais. As temporary formations, chuutai or shotai existed. But they were not "official" unit. Basic unit was called Buntai. As smaller units, "Han" existed.
One more information.
The yard of Kokutai was called "Kanpan" (deck)!!
The collidor of a building was also called "Kanpan" in Japanese or "Deck" In ENGLISH until the end of the war!!!
Getting out of the Kokutai or other land units was called "Johriku" (Landing) !!!!
Hope this helps!
Kat
Posted By: anthony noel <mailto:anoel@lonestar.utsa.edu?subject=IJN Hiyo/ Junyo April 1943 ??>
Date: Monday, 30 April 2001, at 3:32 p.m.
Greetings:
I would appreciate any information on tail-codes, camouflage, and unit markings for D3A VAL 22s and A6M ZEKE 22s from IJN Hiyo and Junyo as presumably operated during April 1943 "Operation I-GO" air offensive.
Any help sincerely appreciated!
Anthony
Re: IJN Hiyo/ Junyo April 1943 ??
*PIC*
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: IJN Hiyo/ Junyo April 1943 ?? *PIC*>
Date: Tuesday, 1 May 2001, at 4:56 a.m.
In Response To: IJN Hiyo/ Junyo April 1943 ??
(anthony noel)
Anthony
The following view (taken April 1943) was posted on the JNAMB earlier this year. It shows the "large spotted" dark green finish on over-all light gray-green base coat on JUNYO A6M2 model 21 Zeros with red carrier code and call nos. Vals probably carried the code [2-2-2xx] with dark green upper surfaces and light gray-green or light blue-gray lower surfaces.
HIYO code was probably [2-1-1xx] for Zeros and [2-1-2xx] for Vals.
IHTH
Jim Lansdale
Re: IJN Hiyo/ Junyo April 1943 ??
Posted By: Allan Alsleben <mailto:Wildcat42@AOL.com?subject=Re: IJN Hiyo/ Junyo April 1943 ??>
Date: Monday, 30 April 2001, at 11:20 p.m.
In Response To: IJN Hiyo/ Junyo April 1943 ??
(anthony noel)
Hello Tony,
To Rick's information, I'll add that Hiyo and Junyo belonged to the 2nd Carrier Division and the codes for Hiyo were A2-1-XXX and Junyo was A2-2-XXX. The third carrier in that division was Ryuho, and that one was A2-3-XXX. This ropunded out the 2nd Carrier Division. As to painting of these aircraft, I'll leave that to those more experienced that I.
Al
Re: IJN Hiyo/ Junyo April 1943 ??
Posted By: rick dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Re: IJN Hiyo/ Junyo April 1943 ??>
Date: Monday, 30 April 2001, at 5:38 p.m.
In Response To: IJN Hiyo/ Junyo April 1943 ??
(anthony noel)
Anthony
I believe the D3A's of Hiyo and Junyo were most likely model 22s. Doubt that the A6M's were model 22s, however. I have found no record to indicate the 2d Carrier Division had model 22s at anytime during 1943. Certainly when they deployed to land bases in July 1943 they were exclusively equipped with model 21s as their strength reports and other documentary evidence shows. Same was true again in December 1943 when they deployed to Kavieng. In 1942 they also flew model 21s. Not conclusive I realize but I think there is a pattern!
Rick
Posted By: Andrew Monroe <mailto:amonroe@spp.org?subject=Dumb Questions>
Date: Wednesday, 27 June 2001, at 7:20 a.m.
I'm going to ask a few more dumb questions
1) Were the fusalage and tail markings on the Japanese Planes specific to carrier, or plane?
2) Were these markings changed for each campaign or did the stay the same?
3) Were the numbers/letters on the tail of the plane specific to plane, group, or carrier
4) Did the Vals, Kates, and other carrier bombers have the same fusalage and tail markings as the fighters
5) What is the difference in a chutai and a kokutai?
6) What were the divisions in the Japanese naval airforce(for example in the US Air Force, they were divided by carrier, then squadron, then group)?
THANKS TO ALL WHO ANSWER MY QUESTIONS
Andrew
Re: Difference Of Chutai and Kokutai
Posted By: Chris <mailto:chrish040642@yahoo.com?subject=Re: Difference Of Chutai and Kokutai>
Date: Thursday, 28 June 2001, at 2:31 p.m.
In Response To: Re: Difference Of Chutai and Kokutai (Andrew Monroe)
Andrew;
Here is a list of terms, found in First Team (by John Lundstrom, which I HIGHLY recommend).
Shotai- A unit of aircraft, two to four planes in strength (usually three). The rough equivalent of a USN section.
Shotaicho- Commander of a shotai
Chutai- A unit of aircraft, six to nine in strength. The rough equivalent of a USN division.
Chutaicho- Commander of a chutai
Buntaicho- Division officer (command echelon in
IJN)
Hikokitai- Japanese Carrier Air Unit
Hikotaicho- Air group officer (command echelon in IJN)
Kanjo Bakugekiki- Carrier bomber (Dive bomber); short- kanbaku
Kanjo Kogekiki- Carrier attack plane (Torpedo plane); short- kanko
Kanjo Sentoki- Carrier fighter; short- kansen
Kido Butai- Carrier striking force
Koku Butai- Naval Air Force
Koku Sentai- Carrier Division or land based air flotilla
Kokutai- Land based naval air group
Posted By: Phil <mailto:phil_graf@hotmail.com?subject=Re: Dumb Questions>
Date: Thursday, 28 June 2001, at 12:27 a.m.
In Response To: Dumb Questions (Andrew Monroe)
1) Were the fusalage and tail markings on the Japanese Planes specific to carrier, or plane?
Yes. For example: BII-315 means B(second carrier division) II(second carrier) 3(torpedo plane) 15(aircraft number).
2) Were these markings changed for each campaign or did the stay the same?
Stayed the same for campaigns, but I do believe there's a controversy if the codes for Hiryu and Soryu switched prior to Midway, due to an admiral shifting flagships.
3) Were the numbers/letters on the tail of the plane specific to plane, group, or carrier
See #1.
4) Did the Vals, Kates, and other carrier bombers have the same fusalage and tail markings as the fighters
The first number in the second part of the tail code will be 1 for fighter, 2 for dive bomber, 3 for torpedo/high level bomber. So, if BII-315 is a torpedo plane, BII-115 is a fighter, and BII-215 is a dive bomber.
5) What is the difference in a chutai and a
kokutai?
I'm not sure, but there are those on here who do.
6) What were the divisions in the Japanese naval airforce(for example in the US Air Force, they were divided by carrier, then squadron, then group)?
See #5
Posted By: Andrew Monroe <mailto:amonroe@spp.org?subject=Re: Dumb Questions>
Date: Thursday, 28 June 2001, at 7:16 a.m.
In Response To: Re: Dumb Questions (Phil)
Hey Phil,
Thanks for the answers, all things I didn't know!!! Very helpful!!!
a few more questions
How about the lines that were painted on the tail and fusalage. Were they unique to each carrier, or plane, or squadron?
Did the lines change with the campaign?
Posted By: Phil <mailto:phil_graf@hotmail.com?subject=Re: Dumb Questions>
Date: Thursday, 28 June 2001, at 8:33 a.m.
In Response To: Re: Dumb Questions (Andrew Monroe)
The fuselage stripes were according to carrier. The first carrier division used red, the second used blue, and the fifth used white. The number of stripes depended upon the carrier's position in the division, whether it was first, second, etc. First would have one stripe, second two, and so forth.
Posted By: Emmanuel <mailto:aecastro1@aol.com?subject=201st Kokutai (Oct. 25, 1944)>
Date: Tuesday, 23 July 2002, at 8:51 p.m.
Hi,
I want to know the
first Kamikaze Special Attack Unit
On October 25, 1944
the first Kamikaze unit was introduced.
Lt. Yukio SEKI (A6M2 02-888) of 201 Ku
led the special attack unit.
I want to know how many planes were launched?
W.O. Hiroyoshi NISHIZAWA also participated
in October 25 (I think) but was the escort
for Lt. SEKI's special unit.
How many planes were launched?
Was he part of 201 Ku or 203 Ku?
What was his aircraft's tail code?
Thanks for the help.
Re: 201st Kokutai (Oct. 25, 1944)
Posted By: Sampon <mailto:Tatsinoue@aol.com?subject=Re: 201st Kokutai (Oct. 25, 1944)>
Date: Thursday, 25 July 2002, at 10:21 p.m.
In Response To: 201st Kokutai (Oct. 25, 1944) (Emmanuel)
Hi, Emmanuel
I have to confess that I now live in Bolivia, so my information may not be very accurate as my access to this kind of literature is very limited.
I found a web page on metal scale models that includes Nishizawa's plane. Here's its URL;
http://www.darumaya.co.jp/metaru-pren.htm
The 20th plane is his, with tale code "108".
According to this page, Nishizawa led three other men and downed two F6Fs. I don't know whether he was in 203th or 201th Kokutai, and hope that someone answers this question.
Re: 201st Kokutai (Oct. 25, 1944)
Posted By: Sampon <mailto:Tatsinoue@aol.com?subject=Re: 201st Kokutai (Oct. 25, 1944)>
Date: Wednesday, 24 July 2002, at 9:40 p.m.
In Response To: 201st Kokutai (Oct. 25, 1944) (Emmanuel)
Hi, Emmanuel!
>On October 25, 1944 the first Kamikaze unit was introduced.
>Lt. Yukio SEKI (A6M2 02-888) of 201 Ku led the special attack unit
>I want to know how many planes were launched?
In Japan, I suppose that almost every enthusiast of WW2 aviation history knows that
Shikishima-tai, the unit led by Lt. Seki was a unit of five. It's because of a famous book by Shiro MORI, published in 1987 titled
"Shikishima-tai no gonin" (Five men of Shikishima-tai).
Names of the 4 men that followed Lt. Seki are as following;
Iwao NAKANO (PO 1st class)
Nobuo TANI (idem)
Hajime NAGAMINE (Heicho; a rank between PO 3rd class and Seaman 1st class)
Shigeo OOGURO (Seaman 1st class)
Re: Nishizawa's escort for Lt. Seki
Posted By: Emmanuel <mailto:aecastro1@aol.com?subject=Re: Nishizawa's escort for Lt. Seki>
Date: Thursday, 25 July 2002, at 1:36 p.m.
In Response To: Re: 201st Kokutai (Oct. 25, 1944)
(Sampon)
Thanks Sampon
Do you know how many escort fighters
was with Lt. SEKI's unit
It was led by W.O. Hiroyoshi NISHIZAWA
Re: Nishizawa's escort for Lt. Seki
Posted By: Andrew Obluski <mailto:aoba41@yahoo.com?subject=Re: Nishizawa's escort for Lt. Seki>
Date: Friday, 2 August 2002, at 5:42 a.m.
In Response To: Re: Nishizawa's escort for Lt. Seki (Emmanuel)
Hi Emmanuel and Sampon
201 Kokutai
Kamikaze Unit
Lt SEKI Yukio [CO], POs NAKANO Iwao, TANI Nobuo, OSANO Shigeo, NAGAMINE Hajime [all
KIA]
Escort Unit
WO NISHIZAWA Hiroyoshi [CO], POs SUGAWA Misao [KIA], HONDA Shingo, BABA Ryoji.
Greetings
Andrew
Re: Nishizawa's escort for Lt. Seki
Posted By: UCHIDA, Katsuhiro <mailto:2000GT-B@mui.biglobe.ne.jp?subject=Re: Nishizawa's escort for Lt. Seki>
Date: Saturday, 3 August 2002, at 1:30 a.m.
In Response To: Re: Nishizawa's escort for Lt. Seki (Emmanuel)
WO Hiroyoshi NISHIZAWA (CO) (Yokaren Otsu 7)
CPO Katsumasa MATSUMOTO (Yokaren Otsu 9)
CPO Shingo HONDA (Yokaren Hei 4)
Leading Flyer Misao SUGAWA (Yokaren Hei 15) - Shot down by AA fires and KIA
Source: "Kamikaze Special Attack Force No. 0" by OONO, Kaoru (1995
Kojinsha)
Posted By: Kris Carelli <mailto:kris_carelli@yahoo.com?subject=204th Kokutai>
Date: Friday, 6 September 2002, at 6:22 a.m.
Would anyone happen to know more about the inner hierarchy of the 204th Kokutai?
I am interested in determing what "squadron" an A6M3 with tail markings T2-190 would have corresponded to.
Thank you for any assitance.
Sincerely,
Kris
Re: 204th Kokutai
Posted By: UCHIDA, Katsuhiro
Date: Friday, 6 September 2002, at 9:05 a.m.
In Response To: 204th Kokutai (Kris Carelli)
Hi Kris,
Do you mean the "Chutai" or the "Hikotai"?
A Chutai (Company) was a NON-OFFICIAL unit in the IJNAF. A Buntai (official "Division") was usually called a Chutai in the air. But you can never know which Chutai you will be attached to tommorow.
And all the planes and aviators belonged to the Hikotai of an air group (Kokutai). Other men of the Kokutai belonged to "Maintenance Buntai", "Paymaster Buntai", "Medical Buntai", and so on...
In 1944, "Tokusetsu Hikotai (Special Squadron)" system was established, but the system was very complicated and it is not easy to explain... (This system was little bit similar to US Navy's "VF", "VB", "VT" system.)
Regards,
Katsuhiro
Chutai "non-official"?
Posted By: richard dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Chutai 'non-official'?>
Date: Friday, 6 September 2002, at 2:26 p.m.
In Response To: Re: 204th Kokutai (UCHIDA, Katsuhiro)
Katsuhiro
Perhaps I am making an obscure distinction but I don't think it correct to say a chutai was not official. In the Japanese Navy it was common for an administrative organization to have a counter-part "tactical" designation. These were two official but parallel organizational designations. The distinction being that the tactical organization was extremely flexible.
There are many examples, an administrative unit called a Fleet might have the tactical designation of "Advance Force" or "Striking Force". An Air Fleet might be designated a "Base Air Force" and an Air Flotilla was tactically an "Air Attack Force." Within the air group each administrative flight division (buntai) corresponded to a tactical flight division (chutai) with a differing numbering system. A shotai or individual pilot from one buntai might (as you state) be assigned to a different chutai for a particular mission. This did not require administrative orders or change his administrative reporting chain it just meant he flew on a mission in a different chutai. This was indeed a flexible system but a very conscious and official one.
Hope I'm not making too much out of a single word but seems to me this may be important to state clearly.
Rick
Oh, that's right!
Posted By: UCHIDA, Katsuhiro
Date: Saturday, 7 September 2002, at 2:10 a.m.
In Response To: Chutai "non-official"? (richard
dunn)
Hi Rick,
Oh, you are completely right.
I remember that the "Tactical" designation was "Guntai Kubun".
(Early 1944)
1st (Battleship) Fleet = "Main Force"
3rd (Carrier) Fleet = "Mobile Unit"
1st Air Fleet = "5th Land Based Air Unit"
Etc....
Regards,
Katsuhiro
Re: 204th Kokutai *PIC*
Posted By: UCHIDA, Katsuhiro
Date: Friday, 6 September 2002, at 10:52 a.m.
In Response To: Re: 204th Kokutai (Kris
Carelli)
Unfortunately, left side of the caption is "cut" and it is not complete.
But the "official" names of the squadrons he belonged to were...
1. 204 Ku era
"204th Kaigun Kokutai Hikoki-tai (Flying Squadron, 20th Naval Air Group)" = Hiko-taicho (Squadron Leader) was Lt. Zenjiro MIYANO
*One Hikotai was attached to 204 Ku like many other Kokutais of those days.
2. 343 Ku era
"343rd Kokutai Sento 301st Hikotai (S301st Fighter Squadron, 343rd Air Group)" = Hiko-taicho (Squadron Leader) of S301 was Lt. Naoshi KANNO
*Four Hikotais (S301, S407, S701 and T4[C6N squadron]) were attached to 343 Ku like many other combat air units of those days.
I hope this helps!
Katsuhiro
Final Question: 204th Kokutai
Posted By: Kris Carelli <mailto:kris_carelli@yahoo.com?subject=Final Question: 204th Kokutai>
Date: Friday, 6 September 2002, at 11:40 a.m.
In Response To: Re: 204th Kokutai *PIC* (UCHIDA, Katsuhiro)
Katsuhiro,
Do you know what was the designation / name of the one hikotai attached to the 204th Kokutai?
Thank you so very much for all of your help!
Sincerely,
Kris
Hikotai x 2
Posted By: richard dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Hikotai x 2>
Date: Saturday, 7 September 2002, at 3:13 p.m.
In Response To: Final Question: 204th Kokutai (Kris
Carelli)
Kris
Prior to the March 44 reorganization the Hikotai was the "Flight Department" of the parent Kokutai. It was an integral part of the Air group or carrier. What happened in March 1944 was that Hikotai became independent commands. They were subordinate to their Air Group but could be transferred from Air Group to Air Group and one Air Group could incorporate multiple Hikotai of the same type aircraft. While the word "Hikotai" remains the same the meaning is very different. The difference between Flight Department and Air Wing might start to scratch at the distinction. The Hikotai under the new system had were Fighter, attack or recon Hikotai and had a numbering system different from their superior Air group.
With respect to 204 Air you should also realize that its composition changed several times during 1943. The number of flight buntai changed and at various times wholesale reinforcements were injected. Under these circumstances you would have to be specific as to date to associate a single pilot to a specific
buntai/chutai.
Tail numbers changed and while model 32s may have been numbered above 190 at one point when they were few in number (probably after late Spring 43) that was almost certainly not the case at an earlier date. The T2 on top versus the T2 in front of the number may also have distinguished 32s and 22s at one point or mark Is from mark IIs at an earlier point. Perhaps our markings experts have a handle on this.
Rick
Re: Final Question: 204th Kokutai
Posted By: UCHIDA, Katsuhiro
Date: Saturday, 7 September 2002, at 2:19 a.m.
In Response To: Final Question: 204th Kokutai (Kris
Carelli)
Hi Kris,
It had no name. It was simply called "Hikotai" or "Hikoki-tai" because 204 Ku had only fighter plane unit.
But 582 Ku useally had two Hikotais (VB and VF). VB was called "582 Ku Kanbaku-tai (Carrier Bomber Squadron, 582nd Air Group)" and VF was called "582 Ku Kansen-tai [or Sentoki-tai] (Carrier Fighter Squadron, 582nd Air Group)"
Like I told in the previous posting, the system became more complicated and it is very hard to explain within a couple of hours! (Even the veterans say, "Hmmm...I still don't know that 'new' system applied in 1944 exactly...")
Regards,
Katsuhiro
204th Kokutai markings according to
Hata/Izawa
Posted By: Jim Broshot <mailto:jbroshot@fidnet.com?subject=204th Kokutai markings according to Hata/Izawa>
Date: Friday, 6 September 2002, at 11:16 p.m.
In Response To: Final Question: 204th Kokutai (Kris Carelli)
Illustration of "Model 22 Zero fighter" under entry for Air Group 204 in Hata/Izawa has tail code:
T2
153
Caption says, "Unit insignia was used during the period June 1943 through 1944. Plane numbers in the 190s indicate the aircraft is a Model 32.
204 Kokutai was disbanded (according to Hata/Izawa) 4 Mar 1944. I think this was BEFORE the hikotai system was established?
Posted By: Randy
<mailto:r.stone.eal@juno.com?subject=Misawa Air Group>
Date: Sunday, 7 July 2002, at 9:14 p.m.
Hello Everyone:
Sorry for the absence...
I need lots of help, any takers ?
When USS Jarvis was sunk by Misawa Group aircraft it
appears the 31 planes on the strike first sighted her and then
executed a search pattern prior to returning empty-handed and then
attacking and sinking Jarvis.
Is this true ? what kind of search pattern did the
Misawa boys execute? what kind of specific records do we find
concerning Jarvis' sinking from the IJN side beyond what we have
already
read through the diverse literature ?
Thanks for everything...
Sincerely,
Randy
Re: Misawa Air Group
Posted By: richard dunn
<mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Re: Misawa Air Group>
Date: Monday, 8 July 2002, at 12:09 p.m.
In Response To: Misawa Air Group (Randy)
Randy
I think this strike comprised 16 G4M1s of Misawa led
by Lt. Tomo Nakamura. Two MIA and one force landed Buka. Any search
was probably just a local area search.
Main search operations were carried out by 4th Ku and
Yokohama and 14th Ku. These were 1 type 2 land recce to Tulagi area
then 123 deg. from Tulagi to total distance of 700 mi from Rabaul.
Four G4Ms on the following courses: 420 mi course 123 deg.from Mono
I.; 580 mi course 120 deg.from Green I.; 700 mi course 138 deg from
Rabaul; 600 mi course 106 deg, lateral turn of 60 mi and return to
Rabaul. This search picked up an Achilles class cruiser 130 mi and 225
deg from Tulagi (i.e. Jarvis). 97 FB 800 mi 96 deg from Rabaul,
lateral turn of 60 mi and return; type 2 FB 700 mi on course of 148
deg from Rabaul with lateral turn.
In addition to Jarvis several cruisers, DDs and
transports were sighted near Tulagi and 6 DDs were sighted 100 mi 231
deg from Tulagi.
Misawa Ku might have taken a look for the 6 DDs for a
possible follow up attack after attacking the "cruiser" but
that's just my guess. Other than the ships in the heavily defended
Tulagi area and absent any sighting of CVs, the "cruiser"
was the best available target.
Hope this is of some help.
Rick
4th and Misawa Air Groups
Posted By: richard dunn
<mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=4th and Misawa Air Groups>
Date: Sunday, 14 July 2002, at 7:54 a.m.
In Response To: Re: Misawa Air Group
(Randy)
Randy
The lateral turn was to the left.
The war diary just says "At 130 nautical miles
and 225 degrees from Tulagi an Achilles class cruiser was sighted and
tracked." This was a sighting by one of the four 4th Ku G4Ms that
took off at 0500 from Rabaul. WD doesn't say which one but number 1
flying 123 deg. 420 mi. from Mono I. looks like it would come closest
to 130x225 from Tulagi. Time of sighting was 1100 hours.
As mention previously there were only three
sightings. 1. The cruisers, DDs and Aks in the Tulagi are, 2. the
"Achilles" class cruiser (Jarvis), and 3. 6 DDs (sighted but
not tracked) 231 degx100 mi from Tilagi at 1135.
No BBs and (as specifically stated in the WD) no CVs
sighted in the search area.
Here's the description from Mono. No. 121:
"The attacking force, upon receipt of the report
of the discovery of an enemy battleship (actually it mistook the enemy
Achille-type cruisers to be battleships, navigating westward 130
nautical miles, bearing 225 degrees from Tulagi) attacked with 16 land
medium bombers and 15 Zero fighters at 1100.Two torpedoes hit the
enemy vessel and it sank at 1135 hours. Losses: Two land medium
bombers lost; one land medium bomber made a forced landing and
damaged."
My analysis would be that the original sighting was
earlier than 1100 (given an 0500 take off from Rabaul) and the patrol
G4M tracked until 1100 when the attack group arrived.
Rick
Re: 4th and Misawa Air Groups
Posted By: Randy
<mailto:r.stone.eal@juno.com?subject=Re: 4th and Misawa Air
Groups>
Date: Sunday, 14 July 2002, at 9:14 a.m.
In Response To: 4th and Misawa Air Groups
(richard dunn)
Hi Richard:
I really appreciate this information.
But to clarify your post am I to clearly understand
that the contact report did mistakenly say battleship ?
And this even though an Achilles type cruiser (which
was, of course, actually Jarvis) was sighted ?
The reason I am trying to get down to the 'rat's
patuti' on this is that I am trying to completely define Jarvis'
actions from the time she was first hit several days before.
As I mentioned above, according to the Vincennes
Report of the air action and other observers, Jarvis shot down the
plane which initially torpedoed her. (It crashed before the torpedo
struck, btw). I know I am likely getting into way more detail than
most people need or want but I find several points intriguing about
Jarvis.
By the way, for the record I would appreciate the
manner in which you wish to be credited for this information so you
may be properly recognized. Do you have a book, article, monograph or
other work which should credited in addition to or in conjunction with
your name ?
One final thing: it does make sense that the turns
would be to the left...the pilot's side.
Thanks a million,
Randy
Re: 4th and Misawa Air Groups
Posted By: richard dunn
<mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Re: 4th and Misawa Air
Groups>
Date: Sunday, 14 July 2002, at 10:11 a.m.
In Response To: Re: 4th and Misawa Air
Groups (Randy)
Randy
The translation of the 25th Air Flotilla War Diary
makes no reference to battleships. As noted in the quote from Japanese
Monograph No. 121 the "Achilles" class cruiser was
originally mistaken for a battleship. I do not have any of the actual
contact reports. I can only infer that the 4th Ku G4M reported a
battleship. This brought down the Misawa attack group which, however,
found no battleship but only a "cruiser" and after a local
area search concluded that the reported battleship was in fact the
cruiser they attacked.
Upon their return the WD recorded the contact and
attack as on a cruiser.
The authors of Mono.121 clearly had good records as a
basis for their narrative. Probably had message traffic if not unit
records and clearly had the 25th War Diary and higher level material.
I would rely upon the parenthetical reference to a battleship
misidentification as factual. Moreover, as noted above I infer it
originated with the 4th Ku contact plane.
Rick
Misawa Air Group
Posted By: Randy
<mailto:r.stone.eal@juno.com?subject=Misawa Air Group>
Date: Monday, 8 July 2002, at 3:15 p.m.
In Response To: Re: Misawa Air Group
(richard dunn)
Hi Richard:
Thank you very much; it is of great help. Do you
happen to know what the specifics of the contact reports were ?
Additionally, all action reports concerned state that
Jarvis shot down the torpedo plane which first torpedoed her between
Guadalcanal and Florida Islands. Have you any more dope on that
incident ?
Thanks,
Randy
Jarvis Mystery
Posted By: richard dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Jarvis
Mystery>
Date: Monday, 8 July 2002, at 6:24 p.m.
In Response To: Misawa Air Group (Randy)
Randy
I'm somewhat mystified by your reference to
"action reports" as Jarvis was lost with all hands and its
fate was not known until long after its loss. What action reports? I'd
love to see them!
The lead aircraft and others in the second chutai
were casualties. This included chutai leader Lt. Ichiro Azemoto
perhaps he was the first to attack. I do not know. I do not have the
unit records with that kind of detail.
I have the times of the recce sighting reports if
that is of interest to you.
Rick
Posted By: Bob <mailto:bob5@home.com?subject=IJN
Flying Boats at Kiska>
Date: Thursday, 24 January 2002, at 10:45 a.m.
Hi Guys,
In the course of my research for "Sensuikan", I
came across a reference to IJN flying boats stationed at Kiska. I assume
they were H6K "Mavises" but I'm not positive. Anybody know the
Kokutai and type operated up there?
TIA
Bob
Re: IJN Flying Boats at Kiska
Posted By: Steve Horn
<mailto:stevehorn55@hotmail.com?subject=Re: IJN Flying Boats at Kiska>
Date: Thursday, 24 January 2002, at 1:43 p.m.
In Response To: IJN Flying Boats at Kiska
(Bob)
Bob,
Jim has it right. Six H6K "Mavis" aircraft from the Toko
Kokutai were alerted in May 1942 to be sent from Yokohama via
Paramushiro in the Kuril Islands to participate in the diversionary
operations against the Aleutian Islands in early June. For the next two
months, the half-dozen "Mavis" bombers operated from a a camp
on Kiska Island's harbor, being serviced by the seaplane tender "Kamitsu
Maru" there. The commanding officer of the detachment, Captain ITO
Sukemitu, stated that their reconnaissance and bombing efforts were
extremely limited by very unfavorable weather in the Aleutians. After
losing five of their number to ground fire and bad weather, two
replacement "Mavis" airplanes were sent to Kiska. The three
remaining airplanes were returned to Japan on 17 August.
Source: Interrogation of Capt. ITO, USSBS No. 100, Navy #22 (October,
1946), p. 106-107.)
Re: IJN Flying Boats at Kiska
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re:
IJN Flying Boats at Kiska>
Date: Thursday, 24 January 2002, at 12:41 p.m.
In Response To: IJN Flying Boats at Kiska (Bob)
Bob
The Toko Kokutai operated a small section of H6K Mavis'
in June 1942 along with a fighter complement of Nakajima A6M2-N Rufes.
The Rufes remained and were included in No.5 Ku when it was organized,
however, the Mavis' were withdrawn after a few casualties.
For a brief account of these operations, see the USSBS
"Interrogations of Japanese Officials" volumes.
HTH
Jim Lansdale
Re: IJN Flying Boats at Kiska
Posted By: Allan <mailto:Wildcat42@AOL.com?subject=Re:
IJN Flying Boats at Kiska>
Date: Saturday, 26 January 2002, at 5:17 p.m.
In Response To: Re: IJN Flying Boats at Kiska (Elias
Giampuranis)
Page 107, NAV-23, USSBS
2 were lost operationally
One from Ominato to Paramushiro
One was weathered out after a flight to the east of Kiska
3 were lost to Ship Fire on 8/8/42
2 were lost to P.38's on 8/16/42
That leaves just one that made it back to Paramushiro
HTH - Al