Navy Misc Info pt 2

Navy Misc Info pt 2

Topics:
Decal Printing
long range fuel tanks
"Louis the Louse"
SHOHO aircraft at Coral Sea
VT Fuses etc
weathering hinomarus
Who bombed the USS Franklin?
Last kamikaze flight
Mystery of Copahee and Saipan.
"The Mission" and LBJ...
Kamakaze Question (New)
Types of aircraft aboard Hosho? (New)
aircraft nomenclature (New)
First Kamikaze (New)
Did This Really Happen? (New)
Yamamoto mission (New)


Decal Printing

Posted By: Andrew Monroe <mailto:amonroe@spp.org?subject=Mr. Goodale> Date: Wednesday, 18 July 2001, at 12:31 p.m.

When you make your own decals, what do you print them from your computer onto so you'll be able to put them on a model? What size would you use for a 1/72nd scale model? Did the 'Val' use the same "font" as the 'Kate' and 'Zeke'? Thanks for all you help
Andrew

Re: Decal Printing

Posted By: Grant Goodale <mailto:grant.goodale@sympatico.ca?subject=Re: Decal Printing> Date: Wednesday, 18 July 2001, at 1:09 p.m.

In Response To: Mr. Goodale (Andrew Monroe)

Andrew -
I only have a cheapy IBM Lexmark printer - probably their bottom of the line. A co-worker had a very high quality cover laser printer so I gave him some decal paper and e-mailed the document to him. Once he printed them, I covered each of the printed areas with Microscale Liquid Decal Film. I had him print another page earlier and I sprayed it with the decal film in the spray can but that caused the toner to run.
The decal paper I was using is the Cutting Edge stuff but it is about $10 Canadian (approx $7 US) per sheet.
If you do not have a good quality graphics printer, you can always print it out on plain paper and then take that paper, the disk containing the document and one or two sheets of decal paper to an office services place (like Kinko's) and have them print it for you at some small cost.
Later this evening, I will post the font that I used for the Zero codes. Note that some aircraft had serif fonts and some had sans serif fonts. One even had a serif font on one side of the fin and sans serif on the other. I think that it was the Hirano Zero.
I do not have the Val kit so I don't know about the font used. I would suggest that you set up a test page with fonts that you think are close and print it on plain paper. That way you can compare it with the kit decals and cheaply play around until you get a close match.
Until later
- Grant

Re: Decal Printing

Posted By: Grant Goodale <mailto:grant.goodale@sympatico.ca?subject=Re: Decal Printing> Date: Wednesday, 18 July 2001, at 3:58 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Decal Printing (Andrew Monroe)

Andrew -
Serif fonts have little "feet" at the bottom of the characters. You are using a serif font when you post a response. A sans serif font does not have these little "feet". When you type in the response, you are using a serif font like Courier and when you display the response, the system is using a sans serf font like Arial.
As for the Zero codes, I used the Arial 16 point bold for the sans serif fontt. I would hazard a guess that the serif font would be Times New Roman 16 point bold.
HTH
- Grant

long range fuel tanks

Posted By: Michael Hwang <mailto:licensedtokill@angelfire.com?subject=long range fuel tanks> Date: Tuesday, 26 June 2001, at 9:52 p.m.

Does anyone know what color the external fuel tanks were painted on the Nakajima J1N2 Gekko (Irving) night fighter? The instruction manual says "orange yellow" but I think that's kind of strange.

Re: long range fuel tanks

Posted By: Hiroyuki Takeuchi Date: Wednesday, 27 June 2001, at 12:02 a.m.

In Response To: long range fuel tanks (Michael Hwang)

A GI reported after the war that the tanks he had seen on Ki61s left on airfields in Japan had orange yellow tanks. That account has apparently grown into some kind of a myth, sometimes misleading one to think that ALL tanks were painted yellow.
The speficied color for the tanks was Yellow-Green number something, which ia apparently a light greenish gray (something like RLM gray), or they were left in neutral gray primer. I won't deny the possibility of yellow tanks, but at least that was not standard.

Re: long range fuel tanks

Posted By: Dennis Klepper <mailto:Dennis.Klepper@FAA.GOV?subject=Re: long range fuel tanks> Date: Wednesday, 27 June 2001, at 5:59 a.m.

In Response To: (Hiroyuki Takeuchi)

Hiroyuki, Check out the book "Meatballs & Dead Birds" and you will find a photgraph of a "Tony" from the 244th Sentai with yellow drop tanks. I don't think the practice was widespread. The 244th was one of the most colorfull outfits in the IJA.

"Louis the Louse"

Posted By: Bill Bourke <mailto:billbourke@xtra.co.nz?subject='Louis the Louse'> Date: Monday, 30 April 2001, at 7:49 a.m.

Does anybody know the indentity of the aircraft the Marines on Guaudalcanal nicknamed "Louis the Louse". It was a single engined plane - presumably a float plane - possibly out of the Shortland Is or Rekata Bay. I also read somewhere that eventually "The Louse" got bowled by a P38 night fighter, especially brought in for the task.

Re: "Louis the Louse"

Posted By: Grant Goodale <mailto:grant.goodale@sympatico.ca?subject=Re: 'Louis the Louse'> Date: Monday, 30 April 2001, at 3:36 p.m.

In Response To: "Louis the Louse" (Bill Bourke)

Bill -
I thought that it was an F1M Pete. I believe I read that somewhere but I could be very wrong.

- Grant

Re: "Louis the Louse"

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: 'Louis the Louse'> Date: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 5:12 a.m.

In Response To: "Louis the Louse" (Bill Bourke)

Hi Bill
Three "characters" which harrassed the Americans on the 'Canal were "Louie the Louse," "Washing Machine Charlie," and "Pistol Pete."
According to my friend Doug CANNING, Y-Mission veteran, "Louie the Louse's" (Petes and/or Jakes) nocturnal missions were ended when a special mission was flown to the Shortlands by P-38's of the 347th FG and a Marine F4U in March 1943. The mission resulted in the destruction of many floatplanes attached to No.938 kaigun kokutai.

There were many "Machine Machine Charlies!" Lou KITTEL (70th FS) shot down a couple of them (Bettys) and Henry MEIGS (6th NFS) finished off the last of them in August and September 1943.

"Pistol Pete" was a large caliber Howitzer which would periodically lob shells into the Marine lines at night. It was eventually put out of action by combined air attacks and the frontal assaults which secured Guadalcanal.

IHTH
Jim Lansdale

Re: "Louis the Louse"

Posted By: Grant Goodale <mailto:grant.goodale@sympatico.ca?subject=Re: 'Louis the Louse'> Date: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 10:56 a.m.

In Response To: "Louis the Louse" (Bill Bourke)

Bill -
I have just finished reading the Osprey Rikko Units book. In it, they mention that a single G4M would fly harassing night raids. The engines were not synchronized and many Marines gave it the name "Washing Machine Charley"
Perhaps this could be the same aircraft but given a nickname by differnt units?

FWIW
- Grant

Re: "Louis the Louse"

Posted By: Bill Bourke <mailto:billbourke@xtra.co.nz?subject=Re: 'Louis the Louse'> Date: Monday, 7 May 2001, at 3:11 p.m.

In Response To: Re: "Louis the Louse" (Grant Goodale)

Yes you are right Grant. According to several books on Guadalcanal, there were two nocturnal interlopers - one as you describe and "Louie the Louse" (spelt right this time !). "Louie" was a single engined aircraft, most probably a float plane out of the Shortlands or in the earlier days, possibly Rekata Bay.

Re: "Louie the Unsynchronised Louse"

Posted By: Ryan Boerema <mailto:ryann1k2j@aol.com?subject=Re: 'Louie the Unsynchronised Louse'> Date: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 2:44 a.m.

In Response To: Re: "Louis the Louse" (Bill Bourke)

How exactly does one unsynchronise an engine. And, knowing its annoying effect on the listener, was it done intentionally?

Re: "Louie the Unsynchronised Louse"

Posted By: Bill Bourke <mailto:billbourke@xtra.co.nz?subject=Re: 'Louie the Unsynchronised Louse'> Date: Tuesday, 8 May 2001, at 4:22 a.m.

In Response To: Re: "Louie the Unsynchronised Louse" (Ryan Boerema)

Ok Ryan, it goes something like this. When you are flying a multi engine aircraft ie two engines or more - each individual engine will perform slightly differently - maybe 50 or so revs above or below its neighbour. If they are not "synchonised", you will get an "out of balance noise" -a bit like an old fashioned washing machine, rather than a steady drone. So the trick is, to adjust the throttles, so that the engines are all turning in harmony and you get one continuous sound. Going by the rev counter can be misleading, as you may have to adjust one engine a tad higher or lower than the other to get that constant sound. The same applies to boats that have twin screws. Once I was on a twin engined boat with a violin player, who said the engines were out of pitch (when I thought I had them pretty good). He was right and we got them both sychonised to perfect pitch. (E flat major if I recall).

The relevance of all of this is, that the Japanese used to send a twin engined aircraft at night over the 1st Marines, recently arrived at Gaudalcanal. The pilot would deliberately de-sychronise the engines, so you had this awful noise going on overhead, (plus the odd bomb and flares etc)that kept everyone awake and jitterey when they should have been getting some shut eye - to cope with what the next day may bring - like another attack.

The Marines dubbed this aircraft 'Washing Machine Charlie" and a single engined aircraft called "Louie the Louse". Louie, being single engined, couldn't pull the de-sychonised bit, so contented himself by dropping the odd small bomb, flares etc. Eventually he met a very sticky end under the guns of a P38 Nightfighter, brought in especially to deal with him. I have an eye witness account to this event somewhere which I will post when I find it.

SHOHO aircraft at Coral Sea

Posted By: Chris <mailto:chrish040642@yahoo.com?subject=SHOHO aircraft at Coral Sea> Date: Monday, 16 July 2001, at 1:48 p.m.

Hey all;
I am not really sure if this is an aircraft or ship question, so I apologize in advance if I posted in the wrong spot.
I was wondering if anyone has the types and number of aircraft carried by SHOHO at Coral Sea? If my memory is correct, she carried a few A6M2s, some A5M4s and B5Ns. Any details on the numbers and types would be greatly appreciated!

Thank you, Chris

Re: SHOHO aircraft at Coral Sea

Posted By: Allan <mailto:Wildcat42@AOL.com?subject=Re: SHOHO aircraft at Coral Sea> Date: Monday, 16 July 2001, at 3:35 p.m.

In Response To: SHOHO aircraft at Coral Sea (Chris)

Hello Chris, The Shoho Group is as follows: Carrier Fighter Unit - Lt. Notomi Kenjiro 9 Type "0" Carrier Fighters 4 Type "96" Carrier Fighters 6 Type "97" Carrie Attack" (Lt. Nakamoto Michitaro Note: On May 2nd, PO2c Tamura Shunichi ditched fatally. He was flying a A6M2

Al

VT Fuses etc

Posted By: Jukka Juutinen Date: Wednesday, 30 May 2001, at 11:37 p.m.

Just recently I got my hands on a book called "The Fighting Lady" by Clark Reynolds. I have read about 1/3 of it and I´ve found it excellent and most absorbing reading. There are a few themes so far: first, it seems that every time they attack Japanese airfields the aircraft are parked in nice rows without any attempt to camouflage or splinter sheltering. This is my impression from many other books as well. Why didn´t the Japanese do away with this weakness? Second, in US pilots opinion Jap. pilots usually attempted beautiful textbook manoeuvres instead of harsh not-by-the-book stuff. Why? Third, the book describes a night attack on the Task Force where the Jap. fail quite badly. The book describes how the attacks were repulsed by AAA fire from screening BBs, cruisers and destroyers. For hours the attackers stubbornly use the same tactics (approach the flattops, shot down or repulsed by AAA). Why didn´t the Japanese commander order his forces to eliminate these screeners first?

Re: A few thoughts...

Posted By: Martin <mailto:mgrant@hei.com?subject=Re: A few thoughts...> Date: Thursday, 31 May 2001, at 6:47 a.m.

In Response To: A few thoughts... (Jukka Juutinen)

HI Jukka! One reason many Japanese Pilots did "beautiful by the book manuevers" may be explained by Saburo Sakai. He said in his book that most pilots, not matter what will never deviate from what they learned in flight school. Those that do and live to gain from thier experience soemtimes go on to be leading aces, whereas most don't go on to be "leading aces" as we know. I don't know about when the comment you mentioned was made in the stream of time during the war, but the later one gets in the war, the greater the percentage of Japanese Pilots were greenies fresh out of flight school, and many of them should NOT have been out of flight school as they were still at the student level. This may have to do with why that comment was made!

Cheers
=Martin

Posted By: Hiroyuki Takeuchi Date: Thursday, 31 May 2001, at 1:57 a.m.

In Response To: A few thoughts... (Jukka Juutinen)

Why were Japanese planes often parked in neat rows upon attack?
Because the attacks were made when the planes were parked in neat rows! I'm not joking. In New Guniea, Solomons, the Philippines, etc., there were always watchers who reported Japanese airfield activities so Allied attacks were often made as the Japanese were preparing for a mission. The Japanese usually had no radar so these raids were almost always surprise attacks.

When the planes were parked, they were usually parked in shelters and camouflaged. Men often had to push these planes for half a mile to and from airstrips.
As for maneuvers, that's because of the short training period in the latter half of the war. Sakai-san has described this issue. He said that the pilots first learn clean maneuvers, but once you have learned it, you dislearn the correct maneuvers and always have your plane slipping around except when you shoot. The "green" pilots had to be sent to battle before learning the combat-dirty maneuvers.

As for AA fire, we never knew about the VT fuse until after the war. Without that knowledge, for AA fire to be THAT effective would have been difficult to believe. Picket destroyers were picked out to be priority targets later on, though.

mailto:hawk81@pacbell.net?subject=Re: A few thoughts...> Date: Thursday, 31 May 2001, at 5:54 a.m.

In Response To: Re: A few thoughts... (Hiroyuki Takeuchi)

Do you mean "Proximity Fuse"? A VT (Variable Timing) fuse would be required for basic AAA fire where the predetermined delay time (corresponding to altitude) is set prior to
loading. I believe it wasn't until much later (post-war) that fire control systems were able to automatically set the timing. As you intimated, radar pickets were hit very heavily in later Kamikaze attacks.

As for the neat rows of aircraft, they were often carcasses of wrecked/damaged-beyond-repair planes set out as decoys.
If you watch most of the gun camera film from later in the war, the Japanese planes rarely took any evasive action at all. Like you said, most of the pilots were right out of training. I'd imagine the poor kids really didn't have a clue what to do and simply froze.

mailto:wblad@msn.com?subject=Re: A few thoughts...> Date: Thursday, 31 May 2001, at 11:05 p.m.

In Response To: Re: A few thoughts... (Bill Leyh)

The "Proximity Fuze", properly known as the "VT Fuze" was developed by the USN pre-war. The first successful test firing was in June 1941. It was a small radar carried by a shell which exploded the shell when it came within lethal range. The fire control system had nothing to do with setting the fuze. It only had to be accurate enough to place the shell within lethal range.

Posted By: Tony Williams <mailto:autogun@globalnet.co.uk?subject=VT Fuzes> Date: Friday, 1 June 2001, at 12:43 a.m.

In Response To: Re: A few thoughts... (William Blado)

Ahem....the concept of the proximity fuze, and even more important the design of the cavity magnetron which made such a small radar set possible, were British inventions. However, British R&D capabilities were under such huge pressure early in the war that the info was passed to the USA, who asked the USN to turn the concept into a production item. This was done, most successfully.

Incidentally, the term "VT" was part of the USN code for the project and had no meaning. However, the British put about the disinformation that it stood for "Variable Time" to make it seem like a conventional time fuze. They were MOST anxious that the Germans shouldn't get hold of the idea and use it against Allied bombers....

Tony Williams Author: Rapid Fire - The Development of Automatic Cannon, Heavy Machine Guns and their Ammunition for Armies, Navies and Air Forces. Details on my military gun and ammunition website:
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/

Re: VT Fuzes

Posted By: Deniz Karaçay > Date: Friday, 1 June 2001, at 6:22 p.m.

In Response To: VT Fuzes (Tony Williams)

I can hardly beleive (???) Cavity Magnetron (Multi-cavity Magnetron to be accurate) device could fit in an AAA shell. Besides it was beyond production capacity to produce in literally millions to arm AAA shells. Or did you mean the fire control radar?

What a shell needed as proximity fuse was an transmitter and receiver not an centimetric radar inside. Besides AAA, land artillery also used proximity fuse for the shell to explode on top of enemy before hitting the ground for maximun damage.

Re: VT Fuzes

Posted By: Tony Williams <mailto:autogun@globalnet.co.uk?subject=Re: VT Fuzes> Date: Friday, 1 June 2001, at 11:14 p.m.

In Response To: Re: VT Fuzes (Deniz Karaçay)

Your are right, Deniz, I was confusing two different developments. However, I have since done some research to refresh my memory!
I have four different texts in front of me which include the development of the proximity fuze, and they tell a consistent story.
It was probably obvious from the first use of AA artillery that it would be ideal to have some way of making a shell explode only when it was close enough to the target, but no practical way of achieving this was available for a long time. The most promising line of development at first appeared to be the photoelectric cell, which would be triggered by the shadow of the target aircraft. The British built such a fuze and tested it in an AA rocket in 1940, but it was too big and fragile to fit in an artillery shell.

The next idea came from the use of radar gun directors. It was to use the reflected energy from the gunlaying set to trigger a receiver in the fuze; a kind of semi-active fuze. Research on this showed it wouldn't work.

What would be ideal was evidently a complete radar set in a fuze, but at that time the components of even the smallest radar set were fragile and needed a large suitcase to carry them in. There is no doubt that research along these lines was going on simultaneously in the USA and the UK, but there was a huge gulf between thinking it would be a nice idea, and figuring out how to do it. According to the British History of the Second World War (Design and Development of Weapons) the first proposals to develop radio proximity fuzes working on a Doppler reflection from planes arose during discussions with the Projectile Development Establishment, British War Office, in April 1940, and the work was taken up by the Air Defence Experimental Establishment.

Hogg's "British and American Artillery of WW2" tells the rest of the story. The British research led to the conclusion that the idea was workable provided that the necessary components could be made (tiny valves, minute condensers and resistors, and above all a powerful but small battery which could sit in an ammunition store for years and yet develop full power a second or two after firing). In 1940 it was impossible for British industry to produce such items because of the demand for radar and radio sets, so when the Tizard Mission went to America in August 1940 to enlist scientific aid, one of the projects they took with them was the proximity fuze, "the theoretical work on which was virtually complete".
The USN was interested in the idea and took over the responsibility for development. Section "V" of the Bureau of Ordnance was in charge of the programme and they allocated it the code-letter "T", which led to it being called the VT fuze. The rest is history.

I do not for one moment underestimate the scale of the task of turning the theoretical concept into a practical fuze, and great credit is due to those Americans involved. However, credit is also due to the British scientists who showed how it could be done.

Tony Williams Author: Rapid Fire - The Development of Automatic Cannon, Heavy Machine Guns and their Ammunition for Armies, Navies and Air Forces. Details on my military gun and ammunition website:
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/

Aircraft

Re: VT Fuzes
Posted By: Deniz Karacay <mailto:dkaracay@umr.edu?subject=Re: VT Fuzes>
Date: Saturday, 2 June 2001, at 5:22 p.m.

In Response To: Re: VT Fuzes (Tony Williams)

Very interesting. I never give a serious thought on the subject before. I presume this proximity fuses could fit in large calibre guns only. Could 40mm Bofors shell take it?

Re: VT Fuzes

Posted By: Bill Leyh <mailto:hawk81@pacbell.net?subject=Re: VT Fuzes> Date: Friday, 1 June 2001, at 1:51 a.m.

In Response To: VT Fuzes (Tony Williams)

Tony,
That's very interesting! And it's still in use today. Two of the main rounds used today in naval guns such as the Mk75 76mm gun are HE-VT and HE-PD.

Bill

Re: VT Fuzes

Posted By: William Blado <mailto:wblad@msn.com?subject=Re: VT Fuzes> Date: Friday, 1 June 2001, at 1:26 a.m.

In Response To: (Tony Williams)

The British did the pioneer work on radar and developed the magnetron that made it practical. But the concept of the proximity fuze is American and goes back as far as 1925 when Admiral Blandy, then a junior officer, proposed it to BuOrd. In 1938 physicist Robert Millikan proposed the idea to the US Navy. The British began work on alternative radio and photoelectric proximity fuzes for their 3-inch rocket in 1939 but gave up because they believed that a system strong enough to withstand the shock of firing could not be developed before the war ended. In August 1940 BuOrd asked the NDRC to develope a proximity fuze. They considered, but discarded, a photoelectric fuze, a ground-controlled fuze, and an acoustic fuze. By may 1941 a self-contained, radio proximity fuze had been designed. In June 1941 it was successfully tested and in August 1941 production contracts were awarded. Developement continued throughout the war and improved models were fielded. The VT fuze first saw action on 4 January 1943 when the cruiser Helena successfully engaged Japanese dive bombers. VT fuzed shells were provided to the British through Lend-Lease. Originally developed for 5-inch guns, by the end of the war there were VT variants for 6-inch and 3-inch guns and the navy 5-inch spin-stabilized rocket and the army T-38 rocket. The US Army had its own VT fuzes.

weathering hinomarus

Posted By: Andrew Monroe <mailto:amonroe@spp.org?subject=weathering hinomarus> Date: Wednesday, 25 July 2001, at 7:02 a.m.
As a hinomaru was exposed to wind, waves and sun, would it become increasingly "white" or would it more "orange" as it aged?
Thanks Andrew

Re: weathering hinomarus

Posted By: Antonio Veiga <mailto:aveiga@airtel.net?subject=Re: weathering hinomarus> Date: Thursday, 26 July 2001, at 5:38 p.m.

In Response To: weathering hinomarus (Andrew Monroe)

Hi Andrew
There is an article by François P. WEILL ,within this very same site, I think is very interesting
http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/weathering_question.htm

Best regards

Re: weathering hinomarus

Posted By: Antonio Veiga <mailto:aveiga@airtel.net?subject=Re: weathering hinomarus> Date: Wednesday, 25 July 2001, at 1:38 p.m.

In Response To: weathering hinomarus (Andrew Monroe)

Hi Andrew
Regarding IJAAF this is what I´ve found:

Due weather exposure and continued action operations/conditions, all painting work (hinomaru included) in japanese aircrafts rapidly deteriorated and finally it peeled off. This effect was more acute in overseas deployed aircrafts,like in tropical islands front where environment conditions were more aggressive, and maintenance works were not as constant/dedicated as at home bases. Sometimes the hinomaru paint coating disappeared almost completely. In other cases the the paint coating remained but its color degenerated into several tones ie:pink, orange, and almost yellow. Some other times land crews crudely overpainted the white outline edge giving then a "halo" effect.

(Source: http://www.warbirdpix.com)
"Frequently, a field applied camouflage was painted around the hinomaru and the white outline was therefore unnecessary and this produced a halo effect around the hinomaru"
"Over time, the red pigment of the upper-surface hinomaru generally oxidised into what has been termed a blood-red colour. ...Nevertheless, the hinomaru of a few machines clearly faded to an orange or pink shade.Obviously, the lower surface hinomaru were not exposed to sunlight to the same degree.On wartime wrecks still extant in New Guinea, some underside hinomaru have remained bright red. ...Towards the final stages of the war , the white outline was frequently not applied to new aircraft, to prevent compromising the overall camouflage and, on other machines , it was partially over-painted in a less conspicuous colour, for the same reason." (Source: "EMBLEMS OF THE RISING SUN" by Peter Scott)

I think for the carrier based IJN aircrafts, it must be added the usual marine environment corrosion effects.
Best regards

Re: weathering hinomarus

Posted By: Micah Bly <mailto:micahbly@visi.com?subject=Re: weathering hinomarus> Date: Wednesday, 25 July 2001, at 9:14 a.m.

In Response To: (Andrew Monroe)

I not only can't answer your question, but I'd like to complicate it with a related one:

Did Japanese ground crews repaint hinomarus (and IFF stripes) more frequently than they did the rest of the airplane? Often you see pictures of airplanes with lots of paint stripping and fading, but relatively fresh looking hinomarus. It kind of looks like they are touching them up?

Micah Bly

Re: weathering hinomarus

Posted By: John Dillon <mailto:john.dillon@wachovia.com?subject=Re: weathering hinomarus> Date: Wednesday, 25 July 2001, at 12:40 p.m.

In Response To: Re: weathering hinomarus (Micah Bly)

I'll take a crack at both questions. The colors of the faded hinomarus varied due to the different composition of the paints used. You can't say that they faded to any uniform color. There is evidence for faded ones of an orange tint as well as light pink.

As for repainting or touching up hinomarus, I can't say whether this was done in the field or not. But remember the hinomarus were almost always painted on at the factory, on clean metal with primer underneath. This wasn't always the case with the camoflage colors, where it wasn't uncommon for the colors to be applied in the field on dirty metal with no primer to aid adhesion. This will often account for fresh looking hinomarus on a plane with badly chipping paint.

HTH
John

Re: weathering hinomarus

Posted By: Merv Brewer <mailto:mervin.brewer@slc.k12.ut.us?subject=Re: weathering hinomarus> Date: Thursday, 26 July 2001, at 7:47 a.m.

In Response To: Re: weathering hinomarus (John Dillon)

Hi guys, While on this subject I have to ask: Were the Hinomarus painted in a gloss or flat color from the factory? I assume they were painted with Laquer based paint. Thanks, Merv

Re: weathering hinomarus

Posted By: John Dillon <mailto:john.dillon@wachovia.com?subject=Re: weathering hinomarus> Date: Thursday, 26 July 2001, at 8:22 a.m.

In Response To: Re: weathering hinomarus (Merv Brewer)

Merv,
I've got a couple photos of planes under assembly at the factory with the hinomarus already painted and they look to be semi-gloss to gloss. I'm sure this could vary from paint batch to paint batch though. I build car models quite a bit and can testify that there are plenty of variables (e.g. brand of paint, humidity, paint to thinner ratio, etc.) that can effect the finish.

John

Re: weathering hinomarus

Posted By: Merv Brewer <mailto:mervin.brewer@slc.k12.ut.us?subject=Re: weathering hinomarus> Date: Thursday, 26 July 2001, at 10:13 a.m.

In Response To: Re: weathering hinomarus (John Dillon)

O.K. with that in mind, then I would assume that the Hinomarus were painted with an Enamal type paint or a Laquer coverd with a clear gloss varnish.I lean toward the latter. These would weather differently and deteriorate slower than a Laquer which comes out in a rough flat finish. That would explain why so many of the IJN aircraft with green top sides show the results of weathering to a lesser extent on the Hinomarus than the rest of the aircraft. Food for thought... Merv

Re: weathering hinomarus

Posted By: Travis Lee <mailto:tmlee2@yahoo.com?subject=Re: weathering hinomarus> Date: Thursday, 26 July 2001, at 4:35 p.m.

In Response To: Re: weathering hinomarus (Merv Brewer)

I am in the U.S. Navy and have the unique opportunity of being stationed in Japan. One of my passions is modeling WWII Japanese aircraft. After studying the topic, I learned from my Japanese military friends that Japanese aircraft maintainers took extensive care of the hinomarus, or "Rising Sun", to put it crudely. As always, the fading depended on the particular paint batch. Remember, painting technology was not what it is today.

Who bombed the USS Franklin?

Posted By: Andrew Johnson <mailto:ajo@ceh.ac.uk?subject=Who bombed the USS Franklin?> Date: Friday, 29 June 2001, at 2:06 a.m.

By the way thanks guys for your info on the Zero drop tanks, I had had a sneaking suspicion they would hold onto them due to shortages etc.
Reading an account of the attack on the USS Franklin, it appeared that a single aircraft sneaked through and placed two bombs on the flight deck - with devastating consequences.
Does anyone know what the plane was, who flew it, from where,from what air group?

Thanks
Andrew

Re: Who bombed the USS Franklin?

Posted By: flip <mailto:waianae1958@juno.com?subject=Re: Who bombed the USS Franklin?> Date: Friday, 29 June 2001, at 6:36 p.m.

In Response To: Who bombed the USS Franklin? (Andrew Johnson)

Judy was the plane, pilot unknown, unit unknown.

Re: Who bombed the USS Franklin?

Posted By: richard dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Re: Who bombed the USS Franklin?> Date: Saturday, 30 June 2001, at 12:12 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Who bombed the USS Franklin? (flip)

Flip
Sounds like you are talking about the 19 March attack. 24 Suisei sortied and ten returned. Only other attack aircraft were Ginga. Since a single engine dive bomber attacked Franklin it looks like Judy is the right answer. These seem to have been from a composite unit opeating from Kokubu air base and apparently referred to as Kokubu Unit and operating under the 5th Air Fleet.

Rick

Re: Who bombed the USS Franklin?

Posted By: richard dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Re: Who bombed the USS Franklin?> Date: Friday, 29 June 2001, at 6:31 p.m.

In Response To: Who bombed the USS Franklin? (Andrew Johnson)

Andrew
Which attack? Oct 15,44 or Oct 30,44 or March 19,45?
Might be able to help if you specify the ocassion.

Rick

Re: Who bombed the USS Franklin?

Posted By: Andrew Johnson <mailto:andrew.johnson28@ntlworld.com?subject=Re: Who bombed the USS Franklin?> Date: Saturday, 30 June 2001, at 1:07 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Who bombed the USS Franklin? (richard dunn)

Thanks Rich
I meant the attack which led to the great catastrophe on the carrier, which I guess is what you were referring to. I suppose they were inline engined Susei? Do we know if the pilot escaped? Was the unit rewarded? Did the Japanese realise what had happened to the carrier?

Thanks
Andrew

Re: Who bombed the USS Franklin?

Posted By: UCHIDA, Katsuhiro <mailto:2000GT-B@mui.biglobe.ne.jp?subject=Re: Who bombed the USS Franklin?> Date: Saturday, 30 June 2001, at 2:04 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Who bombed the USS Franklin? (Andrew Johnson)

Hello Andrew,
Regarding USS FRANKLIN on the day, as Rick told us, the plane might have been D4Y Suisei (Inline or radial) of 5th Air Fleet (Kokutai is unknown). I believe the aviators were shot by her AA fires and were KIA. If they survived, I am sure he would write a book about it after the war like many IJA/IJN aviators. According to an officer of FRANKLIN, two bombs hit the flight deck at one time and they did not noticed that one plane was coming closer to them. Then, the plane might had been a P1Y Ginga. P1Y could carry one 800kg bomb, one 500kg bomb, two 250kg bombs or one 800kg torpedo. D4Y3 Suisei (radial) could carry three 250kg bombs, but I do not think D4Y3 actually carried three 250kg bombs in action. D4Y4 Model 43 could carry one 800kg bomb, but D4Y4's first flight was in Feb. 1945.
5th Air Fleet estimated that they gave serious damages to 4 or 5 carriers around the days, so 5th Air Fleet (5AF) was given a certificate of commendation by Adm. Toyoda (CinC of Combined Fleet [GF]).
IJA Gen. (Ret.) UGAKI, Kazushige read about it on the newspaper and wrote in his diary, "Matome (=VAdm. UGAKI, Matome) did well!" Gen. Ugaki (ex-Prime Minister of Japan) was a cousin of VAdm. Ugaki (CinC of 5AF). This battle is called "Kyushu-oki Koku-sen" in Japan.
Although this is not enough information for you, but I hope this will help you.

Best regards, Katsuhiro

Re: Who bombed the USS Franklin?

Posted By: richard dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Re: Who bombed the USS Franklin?> Date: Saturday, 30 June 2001, at 1:51 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Who bombed the USS Franklin? (Andrew Johnson)

Andrew
The real bad attack was the March 19th 1945 attack off Kyushu. Little damage occurred on Oct 15th,44 but October 30th was a kakmikaze attack and and caused some serious damage and casualties (nothing like the 1945 attack).
Don't know the pilot. I'm not even sure of the unit except as described in the earlier post. The Gingas in the attack were from K406 and K501. Five including Lt.Isao Kananashi failed to return. Suisei were possibly from K105 and K251 but I have been unable to confirm this. Don't know their equipment at that time. Later Suisei model 11's and 12's operated from Kokubu. Both these types have Atsuta engines.

The Japanese claimed one carrier and one cruiser sunk and one carrier on fire. They soon heard of Admiral Nimitz report that only one American warship had been heavily damaged and others lightly damaged. Later they heard Admiral King's report that two hits had been scored on Franklin and 772 killed or wounded. Don't think they knew whether to credit the Suisei unit or the Gingas.

I'm suspect someone out there has more details on this than I do. This is not really my area.

Rick

Last kamikaze flight

Posted By: Dennis <mailto:spit_fire@mail.ru?subject=Last kamikaze flight> Date: Tuesday, 6 November 2001, at 1:41 a.m.

Is somebody tell me on what type of plane - G4M or D4Y made his kamikaze flight Adm. Ugaki?

Re: Last kamikaze flight

Posted By: Steve Horn <mailto:shorn3@bellsouth.net?subject=Re: Last kamikaze flight> Date: Wednesday, 7 November 2001, at 8:53 a.m.

In Response To: Last kamikaze flight (Dennis)

There is a photo ("Last known photo of Ugaki as his plane leaves from Oita [Courtesy of Masataka Chihaya]") in the book "Fading Victory: The Diary of Admiral Matome Ugaki 1941-1945", p. 379. The airplane is a "Judy" and the Admiral has stripped the rank from his uniform before his last flight. He appears looking away in the rear seat and it looks as if somebody else is sitting on his lap. HTH,
Steve Horn

Re: Last kamikaze flight

Posted By: Mike Slater <mailto:slater55@msn.com?subject=Re: Last kamikaze flight> Date: Tuesday, 6 November 2001, at 12:56 p.m.

In Response To: Last kamikaze flight (Dennis)

D4Y. The Admiral rode in the rear gunner/ radio opertor's seat.

Re: Last kamikaze flight

Posted By: Masahiro Washio <mailto:m-washio@zero-fighter.com?subject=Re: Last kamikaze flight> Date: Tuesday, 6 November 2001, at 2:54 a.m.

In Response To: Last kamikaze flight (Dennis)

Maybe D4Y JUDY.

Re: Yes, D4Y4 Model 43 of 701 Ku

Posted By: Mike Namba <mailto:miknamba@pol.net?subject=Re: Yes, D4Y4 Model 43 of 701 Ku> Date: Saturday, 10 November 2001, at 7:55 p.m.

In Response To: Yes, D4Y4 Model 43 of 701 Ku *PIC* (UCHIDA, Katsuhiro)

Thanks Katsuhiro-san. Does this mean that Admiral Ugaki's plane probably had the bomb bay doors removed and the large bomb was exposed under the fusilage?

Posted By: UCHIDA, Katsuhiro <mailto:2000GT-B@mui.biglobe.ne.jp?subject=These are the photos. *PIC*> Date: Tuesday, 6 November 2001, at 7:01 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Yes, D4Y4 Model 43 of 701 Ku (Dennis)

Hi Denis.
D4Y4 was "suitable" for such Special Attack missions, but it was actually a dual-seat conventional plane and it was still called "carrier bomber" (Kanbaku).
Crew of Ugaki's plane: Pilot: Lt. Nakatsuru Radio Man: WO Endo
You can click the URL below and you can see the rear seat of his plane. Yes, two men (Uagki and Endo) sat together on the rear seat.

HTH, Katsuhiro

Source: "Senso-roku" by UGAKI, Matome (Hara Shobo)
Ugaki's plane on Aug. 15, 1945

Adm Ugaki's Last Mission

Posted By: Andrew Obluski <mailto:aoba41@yahoo.com?subject=Adm Ugaki's Last Mission> Date: Tuesday, 6 November 2001, at 7:46 a.m.

In Response To: These are the photos. *PIC* (UCHIDA, Katsuhiro)

Hello
All Japanese servicemen who died in war received promotion. For specially heroic actions selected men were granted posthumous double promotion. These included Tokko pilots, Kaiten pilots and some great aviators like Takehiko Chihaya, Takashige Ekusa and Shigeharu Murata.
But Adm Matome Ugaki received nothing as he acted against the will of the Emperor.

Greetings
Andrew

Re: Yes, indeed.

Posted By: Mike Namba <mailto:miknamba@pol.net?subject=Re: Yes, indeed.> Date: Tuesday, 6 November 2001, at 9:37 p.m.

In Response To: Yes, indeed. *No Text* (UCHIDA, Katsuhiro)

Question: Did that version of the D4Y4 have its bomb bay doors removed and a large 500 kg bomb mounted under the fusilage? I have seen drawings of D4Y4 like this but the Fujimi model I have does not match the drawings?

D4Y4 of 252 Ku (March 1945) *PIC*

Posted By: UCHIDA, Katsuhiro <mailto:2000GT-B@mui.biglobe.ne.jp?subject=D4Y4 of 252 Ku (March 1945) *PIC*> Date: Wednesday, 7 November 2001, at 6:31 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Yes, indeed. (Mike Namba)

Hello Mr. Namba,
I have seen a photo of D4Y4 captured after the war and the D4Y4 has bomb bay doors. I think the US placed the bomb bay doors on the plane. I cannot say that Fujimi D4Y4 (1/72nd) is accurate.

Best regards, Katsuhiro

Mystery of Copahee and Saipan.

Posted By: Masahiro Washio <mailto:m-washio@zero-fighter.com?subject=Mystery of Copahee and Saipan.> Date: Wednesday, 24 October 2001, at 10:10 a.m.

We are discussing Mystery of Copahee and Saipan at Japanese BBS. Many Japanese scholars believe Copahee carried only 14 zeros. We collected many photos taken at Copahee and Saipan.

We can see 14 zeros on Copahee. And ,We can see over 20 zeros at Saipan. (maybe 21) We can see 5 Zeros and 1 Kate in the hangar at Saipan. There are 16 zeros outside the hangar.

Then,We could not find famous 61-120 on Copahee. So.I think,Copahee piled very good Zeros into the ship. But, there is no proof. Do anyone know how many Zeros in fact were carried by Copahee?

Re: Copahee Deck Spot of Zeros

Posted By: Masahiro Washio <mailto:m-washio@zero-fighter.com?subject=Re: Copahee Deck Spot of Zeros> Date: Thursday, 25 October 2001, at 3:38 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Copahee Deck Spot of Zeros *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)

Mr.Lansdale.
Thank you for your surmise. But,We think the second rows left Zero was not 61-120. And I think the last rows Zero was not 61-108. Because, they broke. Of course,they could be able to be repaired. But,there was Zeros of the better condition.

Re: Copahee Deck Spot of Zeros *PIC*

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: Copahee Deck Spot of Zeros *PIC*> Date: Thursday, 25 October 2001, at 4:57 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Copahee Deck Spot of Zeros (Masahiro Washio)

Washio-san
You wrote, "But,We think the second rows left Zero was not 61-120. And I think the last rows Zero was not 61-108. Because, they broke."
I have several photos of [61-120] Nakajima s/n 5357 (see example below). All show, to the contrary, that it was one of the best examples captured. Many years later it became a movie prop and still exists today at the Chino Air Museum. Do you have evidence of [63-120] having being damaged before it was placed on the COPAHEE or en-route?

I, too, cannot make out the number clearly on [61-108] and I have alternated between that number and [61-103]. I still "think" it is [61-108], but I am not at all certain!

HTH
Jim Lansdale

Re: Copahee Deck Spot of Zeros

Posted By: Masahiro Washio <mailto:m-washio@zero-fighter.com?subject=Re: Copahee Deck Spot of Zeros> Date: Thursday, 25 October 2001, at 6:27 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Copahee Deck Spot of Zeros *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)

Lansdale-sama!
Thank you very much for very clear photo of 61-120! Of course I know 61-120 is exists. I saw flying 61-120 at Ryugasaki-Airport,Japan in 1995. And,I went to The Air Museum Planes of Fame to meet her.

The second rows left Zero,The left main wing breaks. And maybe rear landing gear breaks,too. 61-120 was perfect,in your photo. They were different zeros obviously.

Next ,We thought. The last rows right Zero was perfect. But, there was white edge at Hinomaru of the zero. 61-120 had black edge Hinomaru. They were different ,too.

There were no 61-120 on the deck of Copahee. Therefore, we thought that there was 61-120 in bottom of the deck.

Re: Copahee Deck Spot of Zeros

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: Copahee Deck Spot of Zeros> Date: Thursday, 25 October 2001, at 8:30 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Copahee Deck Spot of Zeros *PIC* (Masahiro Washio)

Thank you Washio-san.
Also note that the hinomaru have black (dark) outline. I have other photos with the [61-120] code on this plane, but I had not noticed the damaged port wing tip. It must have been damaged when it was put on board or during transport to the dock!!!

FWIW
Jim Lansdale

Re: Copahee Deck Spot of Zeros *PIC*

Posted By: Masahiro Washio <mailto:m-washio@zero-fighter.com?subject=Re: Copahee Deck Spot of Zeros *PIC*> Date: Thursday, 25 October 2001, at 6:28 p.m.

In Response To: Re:Aslito Field Lineup of 16 Zeros & COPAHEE [61-120] *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)

43-188 was captured on Guam Island. Not Saipan Island.

Re: Saipan Zero Spots.

Posted By: Kenji <mailto:kmiyazak@fujikura.co.jp?subject=Re: Saipan Zero Spots.> Date: Wednesday, 24 October 2001, at 11:35 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Saipan Zero Spots. *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)

Dear Mr. Lansdale,
I am working with Mr. Washio to find the truth of Saipan Zero. We are very surprised and glad that you kindly showed us your version of Zerosf location in Saipan.
After one of our people made that drawing, we have made some progress. So far, we have found 13 (4 of Mitsubishi made 52, 1 of Nakajima Made 21, 8 of Nakajima made 52) of serial numbers and 18 of tail cords of those Zeros.

And then, can we ask you some questions? 1 According to your drawing, 8-25, 61-108/3, 61-126, 8-28, 61-116 are specified in Saipan. We have guessed location of 8-25, 61-108/3, and 61-126 but not found any clear photos to identify their location in front of the hanger. About 8-28 and 61-116, we could not even guess. Especially 61-116 type 21, we have not found any photos showing its number. Would you kindly tell us how you identify those Zeros? Are there some photos of those Zeros? 2 Also on the Copahee, 61-120 is specified. Are there also photos of this Zero on the Copahee? 3 On the Copahee, 61-108 is identified. We have only one photo in which tail cord is too ambiguous to define it as 108. Is there any photo showing 108 clearly? 4 In Japan, it is said that only 14 Zeros on the flight deck were brought to the US. We, however, believe more than 14, probably around 20 Zeros were brought.

"The Mission" and LBJ...

Posted By: Martin <mailto:mgrant@hei.com?subject='The Mission' and LBJ...> Date: Tuesday, 3 July 2001, at 2:39 a.m.

Gents...if the book "The Mission" detailing LBJ's bogus mission in the south pacific against none other than the Tainan Wing is bogus in that he was never there, was someone else there writing what they really witnessed, even a bomber crewman? In other words, was the story true, but someone incerted LBJ instead of "Bob Smith"? Or was the WHOLE thing a work of fiction?

Cheers!
=Martin

Re: "The Mission" and LBJ...

Posted By: MIchael Jacques <mailto:jacqueshong@one.net.au?subject=Re: 'The Mission' and LBJ...> Date: Tuesday, 3 July 2001, at 6:03 a.m.

In Response To: Re: "The Mission" and LBJ... *No Text* (MIchael Jacques)

Sorry for the slip-up above. LBJ did go on his mission, the 22nd Bomb Group had to wait around for LBJ and other brass to turn up before they could go, pretty much assuring that the attack would be a stuff-up. The aircraft LBJ was in, "Heckling Hare" from memory, developed generator failure and turned back before reaching the target. When LBJ got out he was interviewed by a New York Times correspondent and admitted that he did not reach the target. A report on the mission was given to the papers by a gunner who I understand had a flair for self-promotion and probably thought he could get in the papers on LBJ's coat-tails and make handy allies. LBJ was later awarded the Silver Star for the mission, probably so that he would report favourably on MacArthur's command when he returned to the States. LBJ's weakness was that he accepted the award for going on a plane ride, and then stayed silent about the real circumstances of the mission. No doubt he thought the medal would be useful politically after the war.

Re: "The Mission" and LBJ...

Posted By: Martin <mailto:mgrant@hei.com?subject=Re: 'The Mission' and LBJ...> Date: Friday, 6 July 2001, at 7:24 a.m.

In Response To: Re: "The Mission" and LBJ... (MIchael Jacques)

Thanks for the information everyone! I wonder if this gunner who turned in his report, flair for self promotion or not, was telling the story as it happend, you know, the attack from all the zeros? Or was that all made up?

Cheers!
=Martin

Re: "The Mission" and LBJ...

Posted By: Barrett Tillman <mailto:btillman63@hotmail.com?subject=Re: 'The Mission' and LBJ...> Date: Tuesday, 3 July 2001, at 4:19 p.m.

In Response To: Re: "The Mission" and LBJ... (MIchael Jacques)

Michael's take on "The Mission" is correct: the Silver Star aspect was entirely political, both during and after the war. According to Pulitzer Prize winning biographer Robt. Caro (who unaccountably relied on "The Mission" as his sole source on the subject) LBJ had the medal repeatedly presented to him while campaigning in '42. 22nd BG vets have said that two enlisted crewmembers sought to capitalize on their brief wartime affiliation with lbj, while the surviving officer (navigator) was told to keep quiet during the '60s if he couldn't support Johnson's version of events.

The truth has been known in political circles for quite awhile. I have also been told by folks in "Johnson Country" around the Perdinales that public venues repeating the myth will remain in place as long as Lady Bird survives. (Two venues that come to mind are the Navy Memorial in DC and the excellent National Museum of the Pacific War in Fredericksburg.)

Re: "The Mission" and LBJ...

Posted By: Jay Carrell <mailto:omd@texas.net?subject=Re: Thursday on CNN>
Date: Tuesday, 3 July 2001, at 3:33 p.m.

In Response To: Thursday on CNN (Barrett Tillman)

It appears that you are under the misimpression that all Texans are devotees of Lyndon Johnson. LBJ is not exactly revered for his political or wartime contributions here. Texas has pretty much been a conservative state since his administration. His political shenanigans in 1948 in South Texas are legendary. His award of the Silver Star is largely unknown and pretty much shrugged off.
Jay Carrell

Re: "The Mission" and LBJ...

Posted By: John Lundstrom <mailto:jl@mpm.edu?subject=Re: 'The Mission' and LBJ...> Date: Tuesday, 3 July 2001, at 9:31 p.m.

In Response To: Re: "The Mission" and LBJ... (Barrett Tillman)

Not to defend MacArthur, but until the fall of 1942 the Silver Star did not have the prestige that it later received. It then was only a US Army award. For WWI vets (the medal was instituted in 1932 and back-awarded) the Silver Star was like the British MID - Mention in Despatches. It originally was a small silver star that was attached to the WWI Victory Medal & starting in 1932 the vets who were qualified (and there were many thousand) could apply to the govt for the Silver Star Medal.
In my opinion Johnson abused his award after 1942 when the Silver Star Medal was adopted by the USN/USMC and rated as the third highest gallantry award under the CMH.

Re: "The Mission" and LBJ...

Posted By: Barrett Tillman <mailto:btillman63@hotmail.com?subject=Re: 'The Mission' and LBJ...> Date: Tuesday, 3 July 2001, at 10:29 p.m.

In Response To: Re: "The Mission" and LBJ... (John Lundstrom)

John makes a good point; the entire Navy awards system was revamped in August '42 though it took awhile for things to shake out. An interwar version of the Navy Medal of Honor, the extraordinarily botched "Tiffany Cross" of 1919, was finally scuttled and (presumably) the Navy MoH was from thereon limited to combat actions. Similarly, the Navy Cross was elevated from 3rd to 2nd place above the DSM (I think), which probably is why Swede Vejtasa's splendid defense of Enterprise at Santa Cruz got him a Cross instead of The Big One. As John notes, the Silver Star became a more prestigious award than before, followed by the

Bronze Star which was instituted as a ground combat equivalent to the Air Medal. As for the DFC, it was established in 1926 and the earliest recipients were Byrd/Bennett and Lindbergh, all of whom subsequently received the MoH (contrary to the requirements!) for the same exploratory flights.

Re: "The Mission" and LBJ...

Posted By: Pete Chalmers <mailto:pchalmers@carolina.rr.com?subject=Re: 'The Mission' and LBJ...> Date: Wednesday, 4 July 2001, at 8:26 a.m.

In Response To: Re: "The Mission" and LBJ... (Barrett Tillman)

Barrett:
The Bronze Star Medal is really between the DFC and Air Medal in equivalency - most Army folks I know from Vietnam got one more or less automatically if they qualified for the Combat Infantry Badge.

The USN/USMC since Vietnam has followed the Army lead in awarding the combat "V" ( or combat distinquishing device, as distinct from " V for Valor" ) with the DFC and AM to distinguish combat from non-combat awards of those decorations - during my time in the barrel ( 1967-69 ) the "V" was awarded with the Navy Acheivement Medal, Navy Commendation Medal, BS, and LOM.

The Navy also awarded both the AM and DFC for cumulative missions - in my time, 10 "2-pointers" ( Over NVN /Laos) got you a "Strike/Flight" numeral for your Air Medal and 100 " 2-pointers" usually resulted in the DFC.

I would also note the typical language in citations which I have seen: Air Medal : "for meritorious service in aerial flight"
Bronze Star Medal: " for meritorious service "
DFC: "for extraordinary acheivement in aerial flight"
Navy Commendation Medal: "for meritorious acheivement"

"Heroism" or "Heroic" sometimes appear in these citations, but IMHO heroism begins with the Silver Star - the more junior awards are simply for doing the job you were hired to do, which is why LBJ's Silver Star is particularly galling.

I would note that I saw a short "blip" on ABC news re. the LBJ award last night(?) re. a story on one of their news digest programs - this is very old news - I recall discussions about the ribbon when I watched with some of my USN/USMC colleagues in Danang on AFVN TV when LBJ gave his "I Quit" speech in March, 1968 - I still see those empty Vienna sausage and Falstaff beer cans ( never waste beer, warm or cold ! ) flying at the TV as we all angrily asked if we could quit too ( this was 1LT/LTJG thru MAJ/LCDR in the audience ).

I would also note that the Meritorious Service Medal was created in 1969 to eliminate the over-awarding of the Bronze Star.

Re: "The Mission" and LBJ...

Posted By: Barrett Tillman <mailto:btillman63@hotmail.com?subject=Re: 'The Mission' and LBJ...> Date: Wednesday, 4 July 2001, at 12:37 p.m.

In Response To: Re: "The Mission" and LBJ... (Pete Chalmers)

Thanks for your update, Pete. I admit that my perspective is largely WW II, hence the emphasis on origins of the SS, BSM, etc. Medals do evolve as criteria and situations change (to say nothing of politics), which is why John's notation on the Silver Star is so pertinent. The Medal of Honor, ferinstance, was originally limited to enlisted men, and the VC went through a period when it was a military and civilian award. the most consistently applied criteria among major powers seem to have been Germany (which, AFAIK, never rewarded life saving--only damage to the enemy.)

Lindbergh saw some combat during his '44 tour as a tech rep and said that nearly every Japanese soldier probably would have qualified for an MoH but of course Japan had very few valor awards. They set the bar pretty dang high when essentially you are expected to die!

Break-break.

ref. "Can we quit too?" I'm reminded of the story from an AVG pilot of USMC origins. He got a lot of press here in Oregon in early '42 and received a telegram from the governor asking what kind of airplane the taxpayers should buy for him. His immediate reaction: "A DC-3 so we can all go home!"

Kamakaze Question

Posted By: Edward Hawkins <mailto:edward@edwardhawkins.com?subject=Kamakaze Question> Date: Wednesday, 14 August 2002, at 6:25 p.m.

I was watching a Japanese Movie ... In fact, I've watched it about two dozens times, it's really entertaining "Rengo Kantai 1982" but something was bothering me ... I couldn't quite put my finger on it, until ...
As if Emeril sprinkled me with powdered sugar "BAMM!"
There's a scene with some of our main characters going off to kamakaze themselves against the American fleet. They are in a torpedo plane, making a dive on a carrier. There's two people in the plane ...
That's what bathered me ... I know it may have been poetic license and all ... But really ... Wasn't a kamakaze a SOLO action for a pilot? They didn't sent two pilots in one plane, did they?
This is also the same movie, where at the end, just as the Yamato Blows up, there are zeros flying air-cover ... So, I hadn't taken the kamakaze thing seriously, but it still has me bothered ...
Anyone?
-Edward

Re: Kamakaze Question

Posted By: Hiroyuki Takeuchi Date: Wednesday, 21 August 2002, at 7:49 a.m.

In Response To: Kamakaze Question (Edward Hawkins)

2515 IJN personnel and 1406 IJN planes were lost in Kamikaze attacks.
Does this figure give you an answer to the question?

Re: Kamikaze Question

Posted By: Rob Graham - The ReiShikiSenGuy Date: Wednesday, 14 August 2002, at 7:14 p.m.

In Response To: Kamakaze Question (Edward Hawkins)

Edward:
"Let's kick it up a notch with a little pork fat..."
I was also surprised that a considerable number of Japanese crews chose to go on these missions together.
So it did happen. One thing I have noticed, though... It seems I haven't seen any Raidens in Kamikaze use. Almost everything else, but no Raidens. Am I missing out on pictures somewhere?
--Rob

Re: Kamikaze Question

Posted By: John Dillon <mailto:john.dillon@wachovia.com?subject=Re: Kamikaze Question> Date: Thursday, 15 August 2002, at 2:10 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Kamikaze Question (Rob Graham - The ReiShikiSenGuy)

Rob,
I hadn't really thought about it but you're right--I can't think of a single example of when Raidens were used on Kamikaze missions. I've got a couple of theories about it that may or may not make sense.
First, the IJNAF attacks were primarily on shipping while the Raiden was designed as a land based interceptor. It may have been that the Japanese felt that the Raiden would be better used intercepting bombers rather than attacking shipping.
Second, I recall that on many of the missions the planes had to travel quite a distance to reach their targets. I don't have my references here at work, but I would question whether the Raiden had sufficient range for these missions unless the targets were fairly close to the mainland.
That's a little food for thought. A very good question and I'd be interested to hear any other takes on it.
Best regards,
John

Re: Hoyt volumes of inaccurracy

Posted By: Saburo <mailto:saburoplastki@sasktel.net?subject=Re: Hoyt volumes of inaccurracy> Date: Saturday, 13 July 2002, at 7:25 p.m.

In Response To: Hoyt volumes of inaccurracy (richard dunn)

Richard,
Thanks for the information on the Hoyt book.
I really am a rookie as far as the historical part goes. I really like modeling Japanese navy aircraft though.
Can you recommend an accurate english language account of the kamikaze activities ?
Thanks again,
Saburo

Divine Wind

Posted By: richard dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Divine Wind> Date: Sunday, 14 July 2002, at 6:36 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Hoyt volumes of inaccurracy (Saburo)

Saburo
The best single volume is the "Divine Wind" by Inoguchi and Nakajima published by Naval Institute Press in 1958 and possibly still in print in paperback. It has several shortcomings such as repeating the Arima story (but briefly and in context of its value to the Kamikaze effort). It smacks a bit of a justification by the men responsible for implementing the Kamikaze program. The authors were directly involved in the origination of the Navy's Kamikaze program and has the strength of their first hand knowledge. They were assisted by co-author Roger Pineau who had assisted S.E. Morison in writing a seminal US Navy history of WW2 and who had access to important information not then generally available. Final weakness -- it says virtually nothing about Army suicide attacks.
Some flaws, in general excellent book and essential to a study of the area.
Rick

Re: Divine Wind

Posted By: Jim Broshot <mailto:jbroshot@fidnet.com?subject=Re: Divine Wind> Date: Sunday, 14 July 2002, at 5:04 p.m.