Koku-Fan Magazine (January, 1983) has an article by Minoru Akimoto on Japanese flying boat operations. On page 248-249:

"A year later the Pacific War broke out and by then the total of 66 type 97s had been deployed sharing 24 each between Hama-ku and Tokoh-ku, 3 with Yokosuka-ku and 15 with Sasebo-ku.

Among them the Hama-ku had its headquarters on Jaluit with its main force deployed to Palau.

In coordination with the Pearl Harbor attack the Hamu-ku with its 24 Type 97s had been ordered to attack Hawland (Howland?) and Baker Islands. Accordingly the unit left Majuro at 1900 hours on the 7th and arrived over the target area early on the morning of the 8th (Dec. 7 Hawaii time). However, failing to confirm the Pearl Harbor operation the unit waved off its attack mission and returned to Majuro. After returning to the station they confirmed the outbreak of war and left for sortie in the evening of the same date. Early in the morning of the 9th (Dec. 8, Hawaii time)the unit attacked both islands and they returned safely."
(Except for Hawaii dates added, the foregoing is verbatim.)

Did this actually happen? Howland Island had a runway built for Amelia Earhart in 1937. Baker Island did not have a runway built (according to my information) until 1943. Were there any US military or naval facilities on either island on 7 December 1941? What did the Japanese expect to bomb on these islands? Can anyone tell me where I could find more on these incidents or even if they actually took place?

Steve Horn

Japanese Monograph No. 161 version

 

"At 0630 hours on 8 December, 15 large flying boats took off from Majiro to attack Howland Island, but, due to bad weather, returned to base without carrying out the mission. On the following day a reconnaissance was made and it was reported that no enemy planes were on the island. Large flying boats of the air unit continued raids on Howland and baker Islands at least once a week in order to keep the islands under observation."

In the last sentence a take "raid" to mean a recon mission.

Mono. 161 also says RO-64 and RO-68 left Kwajalein on Dec4 and RO-63 left on the 8th. The first two shelled the islands on the 11th and the 68 reconned Howland and confirmed an absence of planes (and facilities destroyed)three days later. A bit of obsession?

Other Japanese OOBs show 66 flying boats. 48 in 1st line units and 18 with home units (as cited above).

Rick

Re: Japanese Monographs: K-Sakusen

 

Jim,

The "K" Sakusen was conceived sometime in late February of '42. This was the Bombing of Hawaii. The "K" was the designator for Hawaii. If the operation was successful, it would be used again. There are two sources, one from the "Rendezvous in Reverse" by Edwin Layton which gives a minute account (March 4/5) of this operation. The other by Ronald Lewin's account in "The American Magic". But the second operation of "K" (Which is an extention of the first), was more complex and involved the 6th Fleet. In other words, there were two operations using the same disignator.

On May 6th, there was a signal sent out for "....to a list of high level addresee's for the 4th Attack Force for a request of 10 crystals for frequencies 4990 and 8990." They had to have them by May 17th. These were received by air on May 12th.

Going back a little, the original "K" was the bombing of Hawaii on March 4/5th and the Recon overflights on March 10th of Midway and Johnston. The second "K", was merely an extension to the original one, and it included using again, French Frigate Shoals and the 3 patrol lines (Submarines) to intercept the US Fleet leaving Pearl. In any event, the US Navy was at FFS, and that portion of "K" was cancelled, but the submarines were late getting to the "Patrol Lines" and TF 16 and 17 slipped past the submarines. This portion of "K" was a failure, as the submarines did not succeed in seeing these two Task Forces, let alone attack them.

The Howland/Baker Island bombardments were nothing more than extensions to the original operation of seizing Tarawa, Makin, and this along with the operation of Aikoku Maru and Hokoku Maru's operation in the Eastern Pacific. These were planned by the 4th Fleet and implemented and considered successful. The big disappointment was the usage of those two AMC, which were expected to garner more shipping than they did. While I can't find the documentation, this was the "RY" Operation. This is not to be confused with the Ocean/Nauru Seizures. The Ocean/Nauru Seizures were an extension of the original plan to be implemented before "FS" Sakusen.

I think Rick can fill in the rest with his Intel and POW interregation reports.

In conclusion, IMO "K" was an ongoing operation, not K one and K two as sometimes mentioned.

FWIW - Al

 

Re: Japanese Monographs: K-Sakusen

 

As the originator of the question, I am interested in ALL sources about the Howland-Baker recon flights, too. I know that JM stands for the the Japanese Monographs, but what does BKS stand for---and where could I gain access to this source?

Steve Horn

Re: Japanese Monographs: K-Sakusen

 

Steve,

"BKS" (if I remember) stands for Boei Kenshujo Senshishitsu, and refers to the War History Office of the Japanese Defense Agency and their set of World War II history volumes, of which there are nearly 100, if I remember correctly. VERY few places have these volumes, even larger university libraries. I am fortunate to have a set closeby at Duke University here in North Carolina.

They are, of course, in Japanese. Consequently, to the average person, very little is helpful apart from charts, etc. However, these volumes give the entire history of Greater East Asia War drawn from Japanese documents, and are an incredible resource if one has the patience (and money) to deal with them.

Mike Wenger
Raleigh, NC

Re: Japanese Monographs: K-Sakusen

 

Steve,

There are no official translations anywhere, and the volumes are ALL in kanji, etc. There has been some interest expressed by the Arizona Memorial folks to get the Pearl Harbor volume done at the University of Hawaii, but nothing definite yet. Any commercial translation would have to run the obstacle course of both U.S./Japanese copyright law, which would be a problem.

The Navy Library in the Washington Navy Yard has a few of the volumes, though by NO MEANS a full set. Unless they have purchased many since about ten years ago, they would not have an extensive collection. They have the Pearl Harbor, Midway, and Guadalcanal volumes, I think. I would try inter-library loan first.

There are a few individuals who have paid an enormous amount of money to get portions of this stuff translated. Because they have paid through the nose, it is understandably difficult to pry the material out of them. I have even translated portions, but let me tell you, it is SLOW going.

Are you the "modeler" Steve Horn? (French Broad, IPMS)? Where have I seen your name?

Might be able to make it to the Winston contest. What is the date? Actually have a pile of kits to sell... nothing special. Was even considering giving them to the Oxford Orphanage.

Regards,

Mike W.

Yamamoto mission

Posted By: Cruiser K <mailto:cruiserk@wans.net?subject=Yamamoto mission>
Date: Monday, 20 May 2002, at 10:02 p.m.

 

I was watching an interesting show about the death of Adm. Yamamoto. I have read a lot about this and have heard a lot. Most lately of interest from the show on the history channel is that 16 P-38's took place in the intercept and that only one was shot down, I thought that Sugita had shot down 2 P-38's on this mission. What is utterly suprising to me is that Japan did not know that it's code had been compromised. With P-38's flying from Henderson for the intercept it, even if they repeated the missions to make them appear as if it was a new routine. Interesting gun camera footage that appears to be from the the actual shoot down and an interview with Rex Barber.

 

Cruiser K

 

Re: Yamamoto mission

Posted By: Henry Sakaida
Date: Wednesday, 22 May 2002, at 5:20 p.m.

In Response To: Yamamoto mission (Cruiser K)

 

I confirm, no gun cameras on the P-38s. I was in a car with Besby Holmes, on the way to the Yamamoto Mission Retrospective in 1988 at Fredericksburg, TX. He told me no camera and he simply shrugged when I asked him why.

I also talked with Rex Barber. He said it happened very fast...boom, boom...from start to finish, about 20 seconds.

Lanphier had stated that when he shot down Yamamoto's Betty, the wing came off and the plane glided into the jungle and exploded. A several WWII era pilots told me that it was impossible...once you loose a wing, the aircraft will tumble! I asked another pilot the same thing, and he said, "That's correct, it will loose stability! It will not glide on one wing!!!"

Indeed, only Ray Hine was shot down. Everyone overclaimed. The USAF Review Board decided to be gutless and kept the status quo, affirming that both Barber and Lanphier get credit. Thanks to efforts by Bunny Darby and others who trekked to the crash site and examined the wreckage, as well as former P-38 veterans like George Chandler who spearheaded the effort to correct the gross injustice, the USAF turned a blind eye.

History will be the judge, and all the reputable aviation historians that I know of, agree that Rex Barber's testimony is credible whereas Lanphier's is not. So, I believe that Rex Barber was the one who shot down Yamamoto's bomber.

Jim Lansdale's recommended sources are terrific. The Yamamoto Mission is NOT ancient history and was solved using modern forensic science and some very fine sleuthing by historians and others.

HENRY

 

Re: Yamamoto mission

Posted By: Cruiser K <mailto:cruiserk@wans.net?subject=Re: Yamamoto mission>
Date: Wednesday, 22 May 2002, at 11:56 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Yamamoto mission (Henry Sakaida)

 

Thanks, for the response Henry!
It is always good to hear fear from a Japanese WWII Aviation historian and author of several good books
which I continue to enjoy to read. I should have known
better than to think that that was actual film footage
of the Yamamoto shootdown, but the film of a Betty going down onto the highside of a Jungle mountain and smoking and
crashing seemed to be like I read about it. However I guess it was me jumping to conclusions and the show expertly inserted the demise of some other Betty bomber
being downed. If any of you have seen the show, the substituded gun camera footage was eery.

Thanks again Henry,

Sincerely,

Cruiser K

 

Re: Yamamoto mission

Posted By: richard dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Re: Yamamoto mission>
Date: Wednesday, 22 May 2002, at 6:39 p.m.

In Response To: (Henry Sakaida)

 

Henry

Perhaps I'm not a "reputable aviation historian", but I suspect I'm the only person on this board who has actually taken cases to the AFBCR (and won) and who understands the law under which they operate and the standards involved.

While I may be sympathetic with your position in this case (and in the Kawato/Boyington matter) I cannot but disagree with the absolute certainty of your statements.

I am no fan of the AFBCR. I could go into their procedures and the law under which they operate but don't want to bore you and others to death.

The AFBCR's position was not a "gross injustice". They are pretty good at correcting gross injustice. It is just in close cases where they fall short but that is entirely consistent with their statutory charter.

The AFBCR spent an extraordinary amount of time and effort on this case. Surely "gutless" is an inappropriate and unworthy term.

There seems to be a big emotional content to this matter. You and others KNOW Barber is credible and Lanphier is not. Huh? The jury (panel of experts not just the AFBCR) decided they couldn't decide that Lanphier had lied (that's what "not credible" means in this context) and you have to believe he lied (not just got details wrong) to deny him partial credit.

Barber got details wrong too. Other US pilots overclaimed. Come on Henry, let's drop the absolute certainty! This is an uncertain business. Henry, you a hero to many people who frequent this board. Please allow logic and circumspection their due.

In a legalistic way I might ask what is the standard of proof of the opinions you have offered: mathematical certainty, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, clear and convincing evidence, or, perhaps, a preponderance of the evidence. Would I be wrong to suspect you have not even thought of the differences? Do you know what standard the AFBCR uses?

Henry, I hope the above is not too rough but opens you to a different perspective on looking at these type matters.

Regards,

Rick

 

Re: "Yamamoto's Last Battle"

Posted By: David Aiken <mailto:David_Aiken@hotmail.com?subject=Re: 'Yamamoto's Last Battle'>
Date: Wednesday, 22 May 2002, at 8:42 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Yamamoto mission (richard dunn)

 

Aloha All,
Gosh, it really HAS been twenty years ago that Sam Tagaya and I worked together on the first issue of the old "Japanese Info Clearinghouse" which covered "The Admiral's Last Battle".

In that issue, Sam made the first connection -in English or Japanese- that Shoichi Sugita was the victor over Ray Hine, using in his study the Japanese book: The Six Escorts ...and in that issue is the first mention in English or Japanese that -based on the autopsy report- ONLY Rex Barber could have killed the Admiral ...never mind who shot the plane down!

It was real nice that Cargill Hall in his "Lightning Over Bougainville" [Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution, 1991] cited that issue ...sadly John Wible in his "The Yamamoto Mission" [Frederickburg, Tx: Nimitz Museum,1988], who used that issue -as we also used and cited his previous efforts and help- did not credit that issue.

Great to have met Kenji Yanagiya and Rex Barber in 1988 at that first Nimitz Museum Symposium... and real great to meet Henry Sakaida and Saburo Sakai then, too!

Jeff Ethell and I sat together at the symposium and were both pleased to hear Yanagiya and Holmes detail their final aerial combats of that mission, and we both looked at each other as we realized at the same time, that Holmes had claimed Yanagiya and Yanagiya had claimed Holmes!

Cheers,
David Aiken

 

Re: Yamamoto Mission *PIC*

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: Yamamoto Mission *PIC*>
Date: Wednesday, 22 May 2002, at 8:24 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Yamamoto mission (richard dunn)

 

Rick

According to the AFBCR, which accepted a nebulous criterion that any pilot on this mission who fired his weapons in the direction of an enemy aircraft which subsequently became a confirmed kill should share equally in that kill, awarded LANPHIER and BARBER equal shares in downing the YAMAMOTO Betty.

Evidence/records extant regarding actual losses by the Japanese on that mission should result in the final tally for 18 April 1943 to be as follows (using the AFBCR ruling in the BARBER case):

BARBER and LANPHIER 1/2 kill each for one Betty (YAMAMOTO)

BARBER, HOLMES, HINE 1/3 kill each for one Betty (UGAKI)

When this revised tally is made (using the AFBCR ruling/criterion) and then added to each pilot's previous "kill record," none should today be included on a roster of American aces!

Indeed, the American Fighter Aces Association did strip LANPHIER of this designation, but not BARBER nor HOLMES!

I, as a member of the jury, Counselor, find that the forensic evidence (including the YAMAMOTO autopsy report and the DARBY crash scene report) has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that a rear attack (consistent with the BARBER version of what occurred) to have resulted in the death of YAMAMOTO.

It is difficult for me to accept any of the LANPHIER account as acceptable evidence that his attack resulted in any actual strikes on the YAMAMOTO Betty.

I am sure LANPHIER believed he made an attack on the bomber carrying YAMAMOTO. However, the UGAKI diary gives very strong evidence that the UGAKI Betty was attacked first by a single P-38 from the starboard beam (consistent with the LANPHIER account) while UGAKI witnessed the jungle crash of the YAMAMOTO Betty in the distance to UGAKI's port quarter.

It is entirely possible that LANPHIER believed he had downed the Betty over the jungle during this pass/attack on UGAKI because, as he was firing, he also observed the YAMAMOTO bomber crash!

In the event, as I said previously, the criterion that was applied by the AFBCR resulted in their decision to award BARBER and LANPHIER equal credit for the YAMAMOTO bomber.

REQUIESCANT IN PACE!

Jim Lansdale

 

Re: Yamamoto Mission

Posted By: richard dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Re: Yamamoto Mission>
Date: Thursday, 23 May 2002, at 6:00 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Yamamoto Mission *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)

 

Jim

I'll only make a couple points. The AFBCR didn't award anybody anything. They refused to correct the existing record as requested by Barber. They did so on the basis that no clear injustice existed to require them to do so.

They obviously do not agree with you that the evidence is so compelling. You cite Ugaki's diary as "strong evidence." Even this strong evidence was written one year after the fact! While Ugaki was making his detailed observations of Yamamoto's bomber his own aircraft was taking violent evasive action. By his own words he lost sight of Yamamoto's bomber (how could it have been otherwise?) during the attack. He himself was involved in a crash seconds after seeing the other bomber in flames and was hospitalized for an extended period. A year later he reconstructed the attack for his diary.

We've read enough combat reports to know well meaning and honest people "see" things that didn't occur and miss obvious things that occur in the heat of battle.

I appreciate all the hard work that has been done in this case and generally agree with the opinion of experts like yourself. I don't find this AFBCR opinion all that satisfying but I think it is well within the bounds of reason and their stautory charter. Of all your comments above I can certainly agree with rest and peace.

Rick

 

Re: Yamamoto Mission: Which Review Board? *PIC*

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: Yamamoto Mission: Which Review Board? *PIC*>
Date: Sunday, 26 May 2002, at 7:37 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Yamamoto Mission (richard dunn)

 

Hi Rick

You wrote, "I'll only make a couple points. The AFBCR didn't award anybody anything. They refused to correct the existing record as requested by Barber. They did so on the basis that no clear injustice existed to require them to do so."

Counselor, thou art eminently correct! I humbly submit I got my "boards" mixed up! (;>)

I should have been referring to the 22 March 1985 Victory Credit Board of Review (see the VCBR conclusions below) chaired by Lt.Col. Frederick E. ZOES of the USAFHRC. This mission debate has been going on so long I have lost track of which hearing or forum who said what and what finding was made!

The last tally I have is that we have seen these debates/cases/hearings, with most of the major participants giving/presenting testimony at: the VCBR hearing in 1985; the Nimitz Museum Symposium 17 April 1988; the AFBCR; the Executive Committee of the American Fighter Aces Association; and in a civil court hearing in Oregon! There are probably more I have not listed.

The crux of my major postion in favor of BARBER as THE shooter is contained in the third paragraph below. The 1985 VCBR concluded, "Capt. Lanphier, once disengaged from the Zeros, next struck Yamamoto's bomber broadside, severing a wing."

The forensic evidence does NOT bear out this scenario. To whit: the wings remained intact until crash; the YAMAMOTO autopsy report yields entry wounds from the rear of the torso; and all strikes found on the fuselage extant were from the rear (although it is possible some side hits "could have been" in the area burned beyond the ability to be encoutered).

In addition, UGAKI was very clear in stating that HIS Betty was attacked from the starboard beam (N.B. I know, a year later, but certainly a lot closer to the action time frame than most other sources and less likely to have been corrupted by faulty or wishful memory!).

In the event, I agree, that the mission was spectacular and all the participants exemplify the epitome of the "Greatest Generation."

I grant as fact that LANPHIER: did fire his weapons in anger during this engagement; believed he alone shot down YAMAMOTO; and that the USAF VCBR rendered a judicious conclusion by basing their findings "on the guidelines established by XIII Fighter Command for the awarding of victory credits."

Incidently, this is food for legal thought:

What if we find a copy of these XIII Fighter Command general orders "for the awarding of victory credits" and find, as I suspect, they were cut AFTER 18 April 1943?

Do we reopen the case by appealing the USAFR VCBR of 22 March 1985 findings as being invalid?

Over.

Jim Lansdale

 

Tail versus Wing

Posted By: richard dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Tail versus Wing>
Date: Sunday, 26 May 2002, at 1:39 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Yamamoto Mission: Which Review Board? *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)

 

Jim

As the AFBCR opinion points out neither Barbar nor Lanphier's story fits exactly with later discovered evidence. One supportable theory is that they both attacked in a very narrow time frame. Each saw something fly off the bomber. One thought it was the tail. One thought it was a wing. Turns out it was probably part of the tail.

My whole point is not that I doubt Barber inflicted serious and possibly killing damage on Y's bomber. But I remain open to the possibility that Lanphier also fired on it and possibly inflicted some damage. If he shot part of the tail off his bullets wouldn't necessarily have been the ones that hit the Admiral.

Two or more people firing on the same aircraft and not realizing others were firing at it seems to have been one of the most common reasons for overclaming. I think it is pretty clear Lanphier and Barber separated at the very beginning of the combat and didn't keep track of one another. Both clearly claimed bombers over the jungle. That was Y's bomber. Unless one of them is lying they both attacked Y's bomber.

If you look at their stories and this combat in isolation lots of things look fishy. If you look at it as one of many combats involving overclaiming (and claims exceeding the number of aircraft present) it doesn't really look that remarkable.

If I get the time I'll post a first hand story from a G4M1 pilot who I suspect was claimed as a victory by several USAAF pilots in a single combat. There was 2:1 overclaiming of Bettys on the mission in question.

Regards,

Rick

 

Re: Tail versus Wing

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: Tail versus Wing>
Date: Sunday, 26 May 2002, at 5:43 p.m.

In Response To: Tail versus Wing (richard dunn)

 

Hi Rick

I truly understand your point!

A computer model of the maneuvers, as described by both pilots produced by SYMA is not a bad place to begin in understanding the time-line of the attack ... and realizing LANPHIER did not have much time to get back to attack the Y bomber after BARBER did.

Scenario in the computer model (as best I recall!):

LANPHIER turns to port during his initial approach into the Zeros, continued in a climbing manuever, and turned wide left to come around within the time window required to place him abeam of the UGAKI bomber.

BARBER, during the inttial approach, banked hard-right behind the Y bomber (losing site of the UGAKI bomber whose pilot has described a P-38 above him). BARBER shoots at Y bomber from the rear, and banks right toward the coast pursued by the Zeros LANPHIER turned into!

LANPHIER, continuing his left turn is above BARBER now and coming in abeam of the UGAKI bomber, fires, passes behind the tail gunner (who was described as actively shooting), and observes the Y bomber crash in front of him at the same time as UGAKI witnesses the same scene.

That is the way I see it! But, we will never know for sure!

Thanks for the exercise!

Jim Lansdale

 

Re: Yamamoto Mission - Lost Reports

Posted By: Mike Wenger <mailto:wengerm@mindspring.com?subject=Re: Yamamoto Mission - Lost Reports>
Date: Thursday, 23 May 2002, at 5:49 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Yamamoto Mission *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)

 

Jim, et al,

I may be mistaken here, but I wanted to interject this.

Regarding the Japanese records of this incident which may or may not exist:

I cannot remember who told me this (I think that it was John Lundstrom) but I was informed that someone doing research over at the War History Office in Tokyo claimed that the Kodochoshos for the Yamamoto action had been torn out of their bindings (these documents are bound into volumes 2-3 inches thick). I can tell you from personal experience that it is difficulr to work without them, as they comprise the principle surviving body of air combat reporting by the Japanese Navy...

Hence, the uncertainty and difficulty of getting to the meat of the matter.

I greatly admire Henry Sakaida's attention to detail and thirst for the truth. He knows that it is a ticklish matter taking at face value the personal reminiscences or documents of one side only, particularly those relating to aerial combat. And if you don't think reports are inaccurate, have a video camera run over your shoulder while you play European Air War, write up a mission report, and then compare the two. It is an illuminating exercise.

Regards,

Mike Wenger

 

Re: Yamamoto Mission *PIC*

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re: Yamamoto Mission *PIC*>
Date: Wednesday, 22 May 2002, at 4:20 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Yamamoto mission (Rick)

 

Hi Rick

A detailed bibliography for all aspects of the Yamamoto Mission would take far two long to compile here. Between the magazine articles and books written on the subject the list would be well over fifty!

The primary sources for American participation include mission, combat, and intelligence reports found in the USAFHRC and NARA; as well as the "Transcript of Proceedings, Air Force Board for Correction of Records, Application of Col Rex T. Barber, October 10, 1991."

Japanese primary sources available in English include the Admiral UGAKI diary (translated by Masataka CHIHAYA and published by the U. of Pittsburgh Press under the title of "Fading Victory").

The forensic reports on the body of Admiral YAMAMOTO (contained in "The Reluctant Admiral" by AGAWA) and of the Betty aircraft at the crash scene (conducted by Charles DARBY and found in the court transcripts) provide powerful evidence that the Admiral died at the hands of Rex BARBER and NOT Tom LANPHIER.

A balance of secondary sources (which would include neutral or biased accounts!) and which discuss the mission and controversey in detail are contained in:

"Get Yamamoto," DAVIS. Random House:1969
"The Yamamoto Mission," WIBLE. Nimitz Museum:1988
"Lightning Over Bougainville," HALL. Smithsonian Institute:1991
"Attack On Yamamoto," GLINES. Orion Books:1990

I personally have many other documents, photographs, and microfilm. Doug CANNING (who flew on the mission) is a close friend who lived in my home after the war. Doug is the Ramrod for the 347th Fighter Group Association and he has provided an enormous volume of correspondence, records, and personal insights into the dynamics of the controversey between BARBER and LANPHIER.

Much of this material is currently being used for a "work in progress," however, if there is interest, I will post some of it on the appropriate MB (e.g. photos of the P-38's flown on the mission on the Everything Else MB).

HTH

Jim Lansdale

 

Re: Yamamoto mission

Posted By: Cruiser K <mailto:cruiserk@wans.net?subject=Re: Yamamoto mission>
Date: Tuesday, 21 May 2002, at 6:55 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Yamamoto mission (Rick)

 

Dear Rick,
I have gathered information about the Yamato mission from various sources. A good book that talks about this mission from the Japanese perspective is Zero: The Story of Japan's air war in the pacific- as seen by the enemy, from Bantam books by Okumiya, Horikoshi, and Caidan. I also received some fun yet semi-fictional information from the movie titled Zero, (which is based loosely on the story of

Sugita) also look for the time life books WWII series, I cannot be sure which volumes but there is information on the Adm. Yamamoto, and the intercept as well. The interviews shown on the show were problably conducted in the late 70's or early 80's. However there were probably a few that were recent.

Cruiser K

 

Re: Yamamoto mission

Posted By: Bill Leyh <mailto:hawk81@pacbell.net?subject=Re: Yamamoto mission>
Date: Tuesday, 21 May 2002, at 12:01 a.m.

In Response To: Yamamoto mission (Cruiser K)

 

Hi Cruiser,

Yessiree, that show definitely made it to my tape library.

Hine was the only pilot lost on the mission. There was some over-claiming on the part of the zero escort pilots, which is understandable in the circumstances. I believe the gun camera footage used in the show was from another source. As I understand it, none of the participating P-38s carried gun camera and/or film. Strange, eh?

That show was the first mention I'd ever heard about follow-up missions to the area to preserve the appearance of serendipity.

It's astonishing that the Japanese didn't choose to err on the side of safety and change their coding system after the raid. It was incredibly cooperative of them.

There are simply not enough superlatives in my vocabulary to describe the great piloting and navigation skills that Mitchell displayed in successfully carrying out that mission. An incredible feat by any standard.

Best regards,

Bill

 

Re: Yamamoto mission

Posted By: Sander Kingsepp <mailto:sander@presshouse.ee?subject=Re: Yamamoto mission>
Date: Tuesday, 21 May 2002, at 12:31 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Yamamoto mission (Cruiser K)

 

Hi Cruiser,

Actually the cryptological background of the Yamamoto shootdown was even more complicated. Check out the following article (there is a brief English summary) or "Gunkan Nagato no Shogai" (Vol. III) by Agawa Hiroyuki for more details.

I also believe that both sides were overclaiming in this particular case. The report sent to Halsey mentioned something like "three Zeros added to the score sum total six". Until 1969 it was generally assumed that a total of three Bettys were downed and the Zeros were claimed as late as in ’88.

Regards,

Sander

 

NTF 131755