Japanese Naval Units

A6M2b 'Kasumigaura Flying Group'

IFF stripes of another Kasumigaura Zero

So, it's not another Kasumigaura Zero after all!

A6M2 Kasumigaura Summary

Patrol Air Unit Codes

Takao Kokutai 1942

601st Kokutai

601 Ku Jills

Kwajalein Aircraft Tail Markings

 

Posted By: Rich Lane <mailto:carrlane@aol.com?subject=Kwajalein Aircraft Tail Markings>
Date: Monday, 20 November 2000, at 10:45 a.m.

 

Hello All,

Does anyone know what the tail markings were for the 952nd Air Unit at Kwajalein Atoll (Ebeye Seaplane Base). I have not been able to locate any information in Maru Mechanic or FAOW. Thanks in advance for the help.

Rich Lane

 

Re: Kwajalein Aircraft Tail Markings

 

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: Kwajalein Aircraft Tail Markings>
Date: Monday, 20 November 2000, at 11:21 a.m.

 

In Response To: Kwajalein Aircraft Tail Markings (Rich Lane)

 

Hi Rich

The assigned code for 952 ku was [P2-.] The rendering was presumably like those of of the 902 ku [P1-.] as seen in Koku Fan Illustrated No.109 (red with white outline). Your bird in the log book would have been [P2-35]. I do not know if the s/n was Mitsubishi or not, if it was it may have been s/n 621 (c/n 21). If it were constructed by No.21 Naval Air arsenal, then its s/n is 761 (c/n 61). I cannot tell from George's translations which is which.

Jim LONG should be able to give you the true numbers.

 

Jim Lansdale

 

Re: Kwajalein Aircraft Tail Markings

 

Posted By: Rich Lane <mailto:carrlane@aol.com?subject=Re: Kwajalein Aircraft Tail Markings>
Date: Thursday, 23 November 2000, at 9:58 a.m.

 

In Response To: Re: Kwajalein Aircraft Tail Markings (James F. Lansdale)

 

Thanks Jim,

This was a 21st Naval Air Arsenal version so the serial number is listed as 761 (61). I could not locate any photographs in the reference material I have that shows any aircraft with "P2" tail numbers. Have you seen any photographs of aircraft with this tail number in your sources? I would think the seaplane base at Ebeye would have had Mavis and Emily as well. Do you know if this correct?

 

Rich Lane

 

Organizational Terms For IJN Kokutai

 

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Organizational Terms For IJN Kokutai>
Date: Sunday, 19 November 2000, at 6:10 a.m.

 

Definitions of terms used by the Imperial Japanese Naval Air Forces in World War II defy literal translation. The following terminology is explained in MIS reports based on captured orders, diaries, and other official Japanese documents including the IJN Official Manual of Military Secret Orders (Nairei Teiyo).

From:

1)"Japanese Air Organization Memoranda Nos.1-12," Prepared by HQ AAF SWPacArea.

2) "Japanese Naval Air Organization," CinCPac-CinCPOA Bulletin 16-45

Page 48:

"Orders issued by the officers in tactical command contain a nomenclature, not found in orders issued by the Navy Minister, which describes formations of aircraft in the air and designates commanding officers for them. These orders use the terms HIKOKITAI (not HIKOTAI), DAITAI, CHUTAI, SHOTAI, KUTAI, HENTAI, and BUNTAI (used infrequently because of the possible confusion with the administrative BUNTAI)."

From:

"Order of Battle, Japanese Navy Air Force, 1 October 1945," Military Intelligence Division, War Department, Washington 25, D.C.

Pages 14-16:

"e. Hikotai [Administrative].

(1) Hiko Buntai. The flight sections of combat Kokutai were originally called Hiko Buntai [in administrative orders]. A Hiko Buntai was often sent to a neighboring base to operate as a detachment, and maintenance personnel were detached from the Kokutai to operate with it. Eventually the Hiko Buntai were replaced by Hikotai."(p.14, op.cit)

***[N.B. Omitted]

j. Combat Formations in the Air [Tactical].

(1) Orders issued by officers in tactical commands use terms to describe aircraft formations in the air, which are not used in orders issued by the Navy Minister. These terms are Hikokitai, Daitai, Chutai, Shotai, Kutai, Hentai, and Buntai. The term Buntai is now less frequently employed, probably because it is easily confused with the administrative Buntai in the Kokutai and Hikotai organizations.

(2) Hikokitai. The term Hikokitai should not be confused with Hikotai. A Hikokitai is a formation comprising a number of aircraft, which varies from time to time according to aircraft types and changes in tactical formations. There may be one or more Hikokitai formations for a given Kokutai or Hikotai.

The terms describing the various subdivisions of a Hikokitai are not capable of precise definitions because of the different ways in which they are employed, but the following examples illustrate Hikokitai organization and nomenclature in particular instances:

(i) First Air Fleet (Kokukantai)

Daitai --- 32 plane (2 Chutai)

Chutai --- 16 Planes (2 Shotai)

Shotai --- 8 planes (2 Kutai)

Kutai --- 4 planes (2 Hentai)

Hentai --- 2 planes

(ii) The YOKOSUKA Kokutai [N.B. Omitted]

(iii) The nomenclature for dive bombers and torpedo planes is more standard [N.B. as used early in the war]:

Daitai --- 27 planes (3 Chutai)

Chutai --- 9 planes (3 Shotai)

Shotai --- 3 planes

(iv) Officers commanding the various Hikokitai formations are generally designated by the addition of the word Cho to the term describing the formation: Buntaicho, Shotaicho, Chutaicho, Daitaicho." (p.p.15-16, op.cit)

 

Jim Lansdale

 

Re: IJN Organizational Terms

 

Posted By: Ryutaro Nambu <mailto:Dadaryu@aol.com?subject=Japanese made easy>
Date: Sunday, 19 November 2000, at 9:31 p.m.

 

In Response To: Organizational Terms For IJN Kokutai (James F. Lansdale)

 

Definitions of terms used by the Imperial Japanese Naval Air Forces in World War II defy literal translation.

I agree 100% to the above statement. Yet, I was tempted to give literal translation, not to add to confusion but to give some perspective. A Japanese old saying (perhaps of Chinese origin, as usual) says "Name depicts substance."

TAI: a unit or outfit.
HIKO: to fly (verb), flight (noun), flying (adjective).
KI: machine
HIKOKI: flying machine (= aircraft).
HIKOTAI: flying unit.
HIKOKITAI: aircraft unit.
KOKU: aeronautics, aeronautical (adjective).
KOKUTAI: aeronautical unit.
KAN: a ship.
TEI: a boat or launch.
KANTAI: ship unit (= a fleet or flotilla).
KOKU KANTAI: aeronautical ship unit.
DAI, CHU, SHO: large, medium, small.
DAITAI: large unit.
CHUTAI: medium unit.
SHOTAI: small unit.
KUTAI: section unit or segment unit.
HENTAI: a formation or flight.
BUNTAI: divided unit or detached unit.

 

Re: IJN Organizational Terms

 

Posted By: David_Aiken <mailto:David_Aiken@hotmail.com?subject=Re: IJN Organizational Terms>
Date: Sunday, 19 November 2000, at 9:00 a.m.

 

In Response To: Organizational Terms For IJN Kokutai (James F. Lansdale)

 

Aloha All,
Gosh, I can see how easy it is for one to be confused given such a plethora of paragraphs.

Thank you, Sam Tagaya, for helping me in 1975 when I had all those terms thrown at me from the Japanese documents and publications. Your treatise on IJN Chain of Command is a great addition to my forthcoming title, ABOVE PEARL.

Cheers,
David Aiken

 

Re: IJN Organizational Terms

 

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: IJN Organizational Terms>
Date: Sunday, 19 November 2000, at 9:35 a.m.

 

In Response To: Re: IJN Organizational Terms (David_Aiken)

 

Thank you David for your comments.

I can also readily understand your confusion over such details of organization my having been there many times before!(;>)

I, like you, have also had a great deal of trouble understanding the Imperial Japanese military ranking nomenclature. I have noted you have changed your "nom de plum" from Taisa Banzai (IJA Colonel) to Daisa Banzai (which I now understand is the way the IJN term for "Captain" is pronounced).

Thank you for clearing this up for our members.

 

Cheers

Jim Lansdale

 

P.S. You wrote that the Sam TAGAYA, "treatise on IJN Chain of Command is a great addition to my forthcoming title, ABOVE PEARL." Can you or Sam give us a tentative date for this publication?

 

Re: IJN Organizational Terms

 

Posted By: David_Aiken <mailto:David_Aiken@hotmail.com?subject=Re: IJN Organizational Terms>
Date: Sunday, 19 November 2000, at 10:23 a.m.

 

In Response To: Re: IJN Organizational Terms (James F. Lansdale)

 

Aloha All,
My confusion over the Japanese Chain of Command terms was in 1975 when Sam Tagaya cleared up that confusion, not today as suggested by the wording in the 19 Nov 9:35AM posting. Just wanted to avoid any misunderstanding.

As to the "release" of the ABOVE PEARL title, Osamu Tagaya is one of those in my acknowledgements. He is quite busy over the rewrites [elimination of 6000 words] of his forthcoming BETTY from Osprey. The ABOVE PEARL title took five years to "name", thus the text may take much longer, eh? ;-).

Cheers,
David Aiken

June 1944 Philippine Sea Land Based Unit Info?

 

Posted By: Richard Dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Re: June 1944 Philippine Sea Land Based Unit Info?>
Date: Saturday, 23 December 2000, at 7:15 p.m.

 

In Response To: June 1944 Philippine Sea Land Based Unit Info? (Vermillion)

 

Vermillion

Here's a bit more info. First a summary of base air force attacks from U.S. sources (with post war Japanese info) and then regarding a particular unit.

During the 11th June fighter sweep and related actions the USN claimed 130 destroyed of which about 75% were in the air. According to Morrison, Cdr. Ohmae thought about 36 Japanese aircraft were destroyed. One G4M was shot down at about 100' altitude immediately after taking off from Aslito on Saipan by Princeton F6Fs. I mention this specifically because when I refer to 761 Air G4Ms below I will be talking about bombers operating from bases other than the Marianas. There were at least a few G4Ms in the Marianas at the time of this attack, however.

CVE FMs claimed a Betty on the 13th and an F6F/TBF claimed one on the 15th. On that date two attack groups got near the U.S. carriers but their attacks were broken up. These were reportedly 3 Judy and 6 Zeke and 10 Frances and 5 Zekes. Apparently 11 of these were lost.

On the 17th 5 Jills and 1 Irving found a transport group and torpedoed LCI 468 which was later scuttled. An LCI was a rather modest landing ship about 160' long and 350 tons or so. These aircraft sortied from Truk. (According to the 22AF War Diary 5 Tenzan of 551 Air attacked a transport group and sank a light cruiser and caused other damage).

A second raid from Yap consisted of 31 Zeke, 17 Judy and 2 Frances. They first attacked the landing area at Charan Kanoa, Saipan where they set LST-84 on fire (later salvaged) and on the return trip attacked a CVE group and hit Fanshaw Bay with one bomb (out of action 6 weeks also a number of personnel casualties). Japanese claimed they had sunk some large carriers.

On the 18th 9 Bettys from Yap missed the USN CV groups but sighted the CVEs. Attack forces were sent out from Yap and Palau. 11 Zekes and 6 Frances from the former and 38 Zekes and 1 Judy from the latter (hmmm). These missed the combatants but found a support group and damaged three AOs. Two could be repaired at Eniwetok but Saranac had thirty casualties and required navy yard repairs.

The base air force didn't contribute much on the 19th but a Zero did near miss DD Stockham with a bomb early on that day. They were trying!

Unconfirmed results include 11 Tenzan of 551 Air claiming 4 transports and a cruiser on the 15th. And 1 G4M of 755 Air and 4 Tenzan of 551 Air claiming a cruiser and other damage on the 16th. These were 22 AF a/c from Truk.

The only medium bomber unit in the 1st Air Fleet at this time was 761 Air. It was equipped with G4M model 11s and model 22s. These were referred to as "Dragon M1s" and "Dragon M2s". On May 17th 761 Ku had 25 G4Ms on hand of which 17 were serviceable. 4/4 were in Japan and 6 more were expected to be received. Two aircraft had been lost 1-15 May. Two more were lost on 20 May. One in connection with the U.S. carrier raids on Marcus I. (operating from Iwo I.) and one operating from Palau. Additional losses included one during anti-sub operations on June 1st and another on the 9th apparently shot down by a Liberator near Palau after a patrol over the Carolines. During the Marianas operations losses were (one each unless specified). 11 June (vs task force), 12th (out of Iwo vs TF), 14 th two losses (at least one out of Iwo), 17th (out of Peleliu vs TF), 18th (out of Peleliu vs TF), 19th (patrol out of Peleliu), 21st (Peleliu vs TF), 27th (night attack on Saipan), 28th (transporting weapons Peleliu to Guam), 30th (Peleliu vs Saipan -- weapons transport also?). There probably were a few aircraft operating from the Marianas which are not included. But these figure relate in part to the 1st, 4th , and 5th buntai.

 

Happy Holidays.

Rick Dunn

 

Re: Comments most Welcome

 

Posted By: Richard Dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Re: Comments most Welcome>
Date: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 11:50 a.m.

 

In Response To: Re: Comments most Welcome (Allan Alsleben)

 

Vermillion

Appendix 77 page 238, US Strategic Bombing Survey, Campaigns of the Pacific War, contains the order of battle of the 1st Air Fleet (5th Base Air Force) and its 61st Air Flotilla as well as the 22, 23, and 26 Air Flotillas. This is as of 1 June 1944. The units, aircraft types and unit commanders appear to be accurate. The aircraft strengths are totally inaccurate and the bases are misleading. On June 1st much of the strength of the 1st Air Fleet was deployed to or en route to Wasile and other bases away from the Marianas in order to support the Japanese response to the invasion of Biak (May 27th). Just as the KON operation diverted part of the Combined Fleet so also was the Central Pacific's base air force diverted to the south. This was a major strategic blunder that went a long way toward making the base air force ineffective during the Marianas operations. Carrier launched fighter sweeps on June 11th and 15th decimated most of the cadre that remained in the Marianas. Those aircraft that deployed to the south suffered losses in combat, operational losses, and sickness among the crews which greatly reduced their effectiveness. When they were redeployed to counter the American move into the Marianas few actually returned to their original bases. Most operated from Yap or other bases far from the Marianas.

The 23 and 26 Air Flotillas played little if any role in the battle. The 22 Air Flotilla had its hands busy at Truk. The fighters and night fighters fought B-24's on a daily basis. Eventually on June 19th what was left of 22 Air Flotilla tried to get into the Marianas where they had to engage in combat just to land their aircraft. Most which were not shot down were destroyed on the ground after taking a few Hellcats with them.

The 1st Air Fleet had a very low state of training. Among the Zero units 261 Ku was ahead of the others. In February 1944 they started to deploy to the Marianas. This was about five months earlier than originally planned. The invasion of the Marshalls had upset the Japanese time table. On 23-24 February when there were very few Zeros based in the Marianas an American carrier raid destroyed 94 aircraft. The Zero units 261 and 263Ku as well as some bomber units were sent to reinforce the 26th Air Flotilla on Palau on March 31st and lost heavily to carrier raids in progress there.

Incidentally Appendix 80 of Campaigns of the Pacific War has a translation of the War Diary of the 22 AF (2d Air Attack Force) for June. Not a whole lot of detail but interesting.

The operations of the 61st and 22d Air Flotillas are definitely an overlooked aspect of the Marianas battle. As suggested above the reasons for their poor performance are interesting and worth further investigation. The B-24 attacks on Truk (there were few raids on the Marianas themselves) and 5th Air Force operations in western New Guinea had a much more significant effect on the Marianas battle than most historians have recognized. But it was the Japanese decision to concentrate on Biak that is really responsible for squandering their land based air force.

 

Regards,

Rick Dunn

 

Prince of Takamatsu

 

Posted By: Uchida, Katsuhiro <mailto:katsuhiro.uchida@honeywell.com?subject=Prince of Takamatsu *PIC*>
Date: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 9:09 p.m.

 

In Response To: Re: Marianas and Tokyo, 1944 (Joern Leckscheid)

 

Thank you Joern and Allan,

There is a diary written by Prince Nobuhito of Takamatsu published in Japan now. The Prince was the first younger brother of the Emperor. He was also a captain of the Navy and a staff officer of the Naval Head Quarters (Kaigun Gunreibu) in Kasumigaseki, Tokyo.
He wrote on his diary every day, but just after the battle of Saipan, he wrote only few words in big characters, "I quit this diary!!" So, he never wrote until the end of the War.

The prince was also a member of a "secret" organization. This secret organization contained Vice Adm.Shigeyoshi Inoue (He commanded during the Battle of the Coral Sea as the commander of the 4th Fleet), Rear Adm.Sohkichi Takagi (staff of the Gunreibu and the Ministry of Navy). This "secret" organization is said to have been led by Adm.Mitsumasa Yonai. Takagi is said that he overthrew Gen.Tojo's administration to stop the war as soon as possible.

In the end, the defeat in Saipan gave Takagi a chance to overthrow Gen.Tojo. (They had a precise information about Boeing B-29 at that time.) But Takagi, Yonai, Inoue, and Prince of Takamatsu had to struggle ONE more year secretly in Tokyo to stop the War.

 

Regards, K. Uchida

 

Re: Well Said, Informative

 

Posted By: Richard Dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Re: Well Said, Informative>
Date: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 1:21 p.m.

 

In Response To: Re: Well Said, Informative *No Text* (Allan Alsleben)

 

Vermillion, Allan

Allan thanks for the kind comment. Here are a few odds and ends that may be of interest.

On 1 June 44 261 Ku's Guam detachment had 8 Zero 52 and 4 Zero 21 (7 and 4 operational). Of 12 pilots 6 were A rated (nominally more than 1000 hrs capable of all misiions), 5 were B (more than 400 hrs capable of day missions) and 1 was C (a beginner).(parenthetical explanation of ability is my note)

On June 10th there were at Wasile 17(12) Suisei 523 Ku, 18 Ginga (all opl) 521 Ku, 25(22) Zero 261 Ku, 34(27) Zero 265 Ku.

On June 5th there were on Yap: 202 4 Zeros, 261 1 Zero, 265 nil, 321 5 Gekko, 503 6 Suisei, 521 2 Ginga, 523 1 Suisei, 1021 3 transports. (521 had 30 Ginga 11's on Guam on that date).

On 8 June the 23d Air Flotilla's 153 Ku had 6 Zeros at Babo but no Suisei there.

Late on the 18th of June a 23d Air Flotilla force arrived at Peleliu. It consisted of 9 land attack bombers (G4M) of 732 Ku (3 being used as transports), 4 land attack bombers of 753, and ten Zeros of 153. The commanders of both 732 and 153 were with the force.

Arrivals at Guam#2 during the 19th. From CarDiv 2 1 Tenzan, 1 Suisei (1 crewman WIA), 2 Zero (1 crash landed), 7 bombers (i.e. T.99 D/B). From 202 5 Zero (1 crash landed), From 523 1 Suisei. Some CarDiv 2 aircraft landed on Rota.

Meanwhile on Iwo Jima...

Aircraft Arriving and lost at Iwo Jima 18-26 June

Hachiman Air Attack Force

T.01 LA 22 arrived 14 failed to return 4 misc loss
Zero 55 14 2+(+garbled in
Suisei 9 3 original my
T .02 Rcn 6 1 1 calculation)

752
T .01 LA 18 2 5
Tenzan 14 6 4

252
Zero 39 10 10

301
Zero 41 4 2

These would be losses after the combat on the 15th but including the carrier raid on the 24th and attacks on the Marianas(my note), Also, the Bettys were model 22's (G4M2).

I may have some more of this sort of stuff but nothing I could lay my hands on readily.

In case you are wondering these are from translations of intercepted Japanses radio traffic. I've had to infer that 732 Ku arrived at Peleliu on the 18th. The message says arrived at 1845 hrs (no date)but the message time group is 6/191111/44. So I infer it was sent at 1111 hrs the 19th and relates to an arrival on the 18th.

 

Rick Dunn

 

Kokutai

Posted By: Larry <mailto:Hldeziv@aol.com?subject=Kokutai>
Date: Thursday, 1 February 2001, at 10:32 a.m.

 

David 

Continuing this discussion from the Army Board as you suggested, yes, I agree that it is difficult to make "Group" in the USN context fit as an adequate and correct definition. The wartime intelligence people at JICPOA in Honolulu and Op-20G in WashDC struggled with it too, before settling on "Group". But speaking purely from the viewpoint of common, accepted usage, most researchers and historians prefer to use "Group", even though it may not be correct on several levels. To, as might be suggested, turn this all around now 56 years after the fact and discard "Air Group" for "Air Unit" would be, in my humble opinion, a bridge too far. I may be totally off base on this, but I think many would agree with this position. Kind regards,
(Larry)

 

Re: Terminology Of IJNAF Units

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: Terminology Of IJNAF Units>
Date: Saturday, 3 February 2001, at 10:19 a.m.

In Response To: Kokutai (Larry)

 

Larry

The Directorate of Intelligence, HQ.AAFSWPA, in Comments No.28A, 26 November 1942, established the following terminology as used by Allied intelligence teams:

Japanese Term/HQ of Directorate/USN/Air Ministry

Kokukantai/Air Fleet/Air Fleet/Air Fleet
Rengo Kokutai/Combined Air Units/?/?
Kokusentai 1-5/CarDiv/CarDiv/CarDiv
11-12/Seaplatendiv/Seaplatenddiv/seaplatendiv (ex airron
13-20/Air wings/?/Airron
21-27/AirFlot/AirFlot/AirFlot
Kokutai/Air Unit/Air Group/Air Unit

Maybe not everyone used the same terms, but convention in the USN did label a Kokutai as an Air Group in spite of its variable size.

 

IHTH

Jim Lansdale

 

Re: Terminology Of IJNAF Units

Posted By: Jim Broshot <mailto:jbroshot@socket.net?subject=Re: Terminology Of IJNAF Units>
Date: Saturday, 3 February 2001, at 10:09 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Terminology Of IJNAF Units (James F. Lansdale)

 

Fascinating. The Glossary in THE JAPANESE AIR FORCES IN WORLD WAR II (Hippocrene Books, Inc., 1979), a reprint of a British Intelligence manual circa 1945, gives:

"Kokukantai/Air Fleet/Air Fleet/Air Fleet" -

AIR FLEET

"Rengo Kokutai/Combined Air Units/?/?" -

COMBINED AIR GROUP

Plus Kichi Koku Butai - BASE AIR FORCE

"Kokusentai 1-5/CarDiv/CarDiv/CarDiv
11-12/Seaplatendiv/Seaplatenddiv/seaplatendiv (ex airron
13-20/Air wings/?/Airron
21-27/AirFlot/AirFlot/AirFlot" -

AIR FLOTILLA (also noted in text as CARRIER DIVISION)

plus Koku Kushu Butai - AIR ATTACK FORCE

"Kokutai/Air Unit/Air Group/Air Unit"

AIR GROUP

 

Re: Terminology Of IJNAF Units

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: Terminology Of IJNAF Units>
Date: Sunday, 4 February 2001, at 7:24 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Terminology Of IJNAF Units (Jim Broshot)

 

Hi Jim

It looks like the Air Ministry also came around to using "Air Group" as a translation for Kokutai between end of 1942 and 1945!

Thank you for the reminder. Your cited source is indispensable to any serious researcher of this subject.

 

Jim Lansdale

 

Commanding officers (in English)

Posted By: Uchida, Katsuhiro <mailto:katsuhiro.uchida@honeywell.com?subject=Commanding officers (in English)>
Date: Monday, 5 February 2001, at 8:16 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Terminology Of IJNAF Units (Jim Broshot)

 

Hi Larry,

Folowing is just for your information,

Name of the commanding officer;

Kantai (koku kantai) - Shirei Chokan (Admiral or Vice Admiral)
Sentai (koku sentai) - Shireikan (Vice Admiral or Rear Admiral)
Carrier, Battleship, Cruiser - Kancho (Rear Admiral or Captain)
Submarine - Sensui Kancho (Commander or Lt. Commander)
Destroyer - Kuchiku Kancho (Commander or Lt. Commander)
Kokutai (or Sensuitai, Rikusentai...) - Shirei (Captain or Commander)
Hikotai - Hiko Taicho (Lt. Commander or Lt. sg)
Buntai - Buntaicho (Lt. sg or Lt. jg)
Buntai Assistant Officer - Buntaishi (Lt. jg, Ensign or Warrent Officer)

 

Hope this helps,

Katsuhiro Uchida

 

6th Air Group Color Schemes

Posted By: Jon Parshall <mailto:jonp@combinedfleet.com?subject=6th Air Group Color Schemes>
Date: Thursday, 15 March 2001, at 1:57 p.m.

 

All;

Does anyone have any information concerning what color scheme the 6th Air Group Zeros would have been sporting at Midway? Also their tail markings, etc? Finally, does anyone have confirmation via a reliable source (and if so, where) as to whether or not these Zeros would have been equipped with tailhooks?

Thanks very much,

 

Jon Parshall
Imperial Japanese Navy Homepage
www.combinedfleet.com

 

6th Air Group Color Schemes

Posted By: Tom Hall <mailto:Hall023038@aol.com?subject=6th Air Group Color Schemes>
Date: Friday, 16 March 2001, at 4:53 a.m.

In Response To:  (Jon Parshall)

 

Dear Mr. Parshall,

I hope that some day your research and the underwater searches will be able to answer your questions more fully. In the meantime, it is thought that the unit code for 6th Ku was U- . The Gakken series on the war says that some 6th Ku planes got airborne during the Midway Battle over Akagi, Kaga, et al. This tells me at least some of their planes had tail hooks. However, few of their pilots were checked out for carrier takeoffs and landings, which limited their participation in the CAP.

 

Re: 6th Air Group Color Schemes

Posted By: Jon Parshall <mailto:jonp@combinedfleet.com?subject=Re: 6th Air Group Color Schemes>
Date: Friday, 16 March 2001, at 8:23 a.m.

In Response To: 6th Air Group Color Schemes (Tom Hall)

 

Lt. Kaneko Tadashi, CO of the 6th airgroup, as well as PO1c Okazaki Masayoshi and PO3c Kurauchi Takashi, were launched at 0710 from Akagi as part of the CAP. (Thanks go to Mr. Horan for providing me with that). I think the question is whether they were flying their own Zeros, or those of Akagi. Mark H. wrote me offline yesterday to say that both Lundstrom and Izawa say that these Zeros had no tailhooks, so they must have been flying Akagi planes, although why 6th airgroup guys were flying in preference to pilots from Akagi's own airgroup makes no damned sense to me at all! :-)

Thanks for the group designator! Which Gakken book are you citing here, BTW?

 

Cheers,

jon

 

Re: 6th Air Group Color Schemes

Posted By: Tom Hall <mailto:Hall023038@aol.com?subject=Re: 6th Air Group Color Schemes>
Date: Friday, 16 March 2001, at 9:15 a.m.

In Response To:  (Jon Parshall)

Re: NO Tailhooks???!!!

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: NO Tailhooks???!!!>
Date: Friday, 16 March 2001, at 9:08 a.m.

In Response To: Re: 6th Air Group Color Schemes (Jon Parshall)

 

Regarding tailhooks on Zeros:

It has been long alleged that land-based Zeros had no tailhooks. While it is possible that a few tailhooks may have been removed as a weight-saving practice by some land-based units, I have never seen any credible source that states that this practice was wide-spread nor ANY evidence that hooks were removed prior to delivery to units in the field!

 

Jim Lansdale

 

Re: NO Tailhooks???!!!

Posted By: rick dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Re: NO Tailhooks???!!!>
Date: Friday, 16 March 2001, at 6:17 p.m.

In Response To: Re: NO Tailhooks???!!! (James F. Lansdale)

 

Guys

I think I have some msgs on 6th Ku but before I dig them out I'll just mention. How about the VF-17 Corsairs. They fought without tailhooks in the Solomons AND put them back on when they flew CAP for the CV's on Nov 11, 43. AND landed on board to refuel. Ain't so hard, huh? Why not so for the Japanese?

 

RLD

 

Re: NO Tailhooks???!!!

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: NO Tailhooks???!!!>
Date: Friday, 16 March 2001, at 7:11 p.m.

In Response To: Re: NO Tailhooks???!!! (rick dunn)

 

Rick

You write, "How about the VF-17 Corsairs. They fought without tailhooks in the Solomons AND put them back on when they flew CAP for the CV's on Nov 11, 43. AND landed on board to refuel. Ain't so hard, huh? Why not so for the Japanese?"

Are you saying what is good "for the Goose in good for the Gander?" (;>) Certainly this practice by VF-17 has been recorded and documented.

While, what you say may be logical for the Japanese to practice the same thing, such an occurance is still, at this point, speculation!

What we are looking for is ANY reliable or credible reference for the alleged practice of removing tailhooks from Zeros on board any carrier (or even from ANY Zero attached to a land-based unit). I know of no source which documents finding loose tailhooks lying about abandoned Japanese airfields nor have I seen any crash report or photo which illustrates the lack of a tailhook on a Zero. But, I have to admit, I will continue to look and learn! (;>)

Certainly it is in the realm of possibility that the Japanese land-based Zero units DID remove hooks as a weight-saving practice, but, to my knowledge, this has never been reliably or verifiably documented.

 

FWIW

Jim Lansdale

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.