IJN Aircraft losses 7 December 1941

Discussions on all aspects of the Japanese Empire, from the capture of Taiwan until the end of the Second World War.
User avatar
ShindenKai
Member
Posts: 670
Joined: 29 Jan 2012 05:43
Location: USA

Re: IJN Aircraft losses 7 December 1941

Post by ShindenKai » 15 Sep 2023 04:46

glenn239 wrote:
13 Sep 2023 23:57

So if the aircraft are in the hangers then the modern theory on the Akagi's loss is confirmed by the debris, and if the aircraft are not in the hangers then the modern theory is also confirmed by the lack of debris? The other theory was that the aircraft were not in the hanger, and this theory also requires that the hangers would be found to be empty.

We are not experts in the field of WW2 era aircraft carrier hanger fires, so at this point we need to wait events of the expedition. The podcasts were confusing to watch, but the general pattern seemed to be that Kaga's hangers might have been mostly or completely gone, such that it'salmost like the hangers were never mounted on the ship. In contrast, Akagi's are heavily ripped up and open on the flight deck for long stretches, but they are still there and the ROV could look into the hangers. In answer to a question the team that inspected the hangers said that they did not see aircraft debris in them.

If the Akagi's aircraft were on the flight deck, then they will be found in the debris field going back towards the point of bombing. If they were in the hanger, then they should have seen evidence of aircraft remains in the hanger. It is possible that the ship was inverted while sinking and that debris spilled out, but in this case, the aircraft debris must be close to the wreck. The facts as I understand them at this moment is that the state of the wreck is consistent with Akagi's aircraft on the flight deck when bombed because there is no evidence from the wreck that they were in the hanger. If on the flight deck there should be aircraft discovered in the debris field. If no aircraft are in the future discovered in the debris field then they must still be in the hanger. But, if they are in the hanger, then the ROV team would have just said that. So the aircraft are more likely in the debris field I would think.
You have fantastically unrealistic expectations of an aircraft's structure strength VS 32 1,700lb bomb & torpedo explosions! -The enclosed space of the hangars compounds the explosive forces. It's comical really. It would be an absolute "hand-of-God" miracle for ANY aircraft within the hangars to be anything bigger than shredded & crushed pop cans in size. The only exceptions being maybe chunks of engines and landing gear legs.

The aircraft on deck won't have faired much better either. Not only would each plane be destroyed by it's own torpedo, but each explosion would contribute to the absolute erasure of those aircraft around it. In other words, it's not surprising in the least that aircraft weren't found.

Rob Stuart
Member
Posts: 1200
Joined: 18 Apr 2009 00:41
Location: Ottawa

Re: IJN Aircraft losses 7 December 1941

Post by Rob Stuart » 15 Sep 2023 13:52

Eugen Pinak wrote:
14 Sep 2023 19:39
Fontessa - here is a link on English translation of Iizuka story (links to parts are at the bottom of the page): https://j-aircraft.com/research/jimlans ... rward.html
Hey Eugen, this post of yours yesterday was your post number 1173 on AHS. My post of yesterday was my post 1174 on AHS. Are we twins or something? 8-)

Rob

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5868
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 01:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: IJN Aircraft losses 7 December 1941

Post by glenn239 » 16 Sep 2023 15:22

fontessa wrote:
14 Sep 2023 03:28
Thanks for the detailed comment. Sorry for my poor English skills. Are you saying that I was wrong (or maybe wrong) in saying that Kates were in the hangar when Akagi was dive-bombed? If so, Kates were in the hangar. Based on the research from many Akagi survivors, Senshi Sosho says so. Japanese Wiki just followed suit. It may have been an exaggeration regarding debris in my comments...
I'm saying that the hangers of Akagi were just directly inspected for the first time in history and there was no evidence seen of the Kates being in them. You've suggested that various factors might account for that, such as fires and explosions, but when I was watching the podcast the surveyors did get that question and they said they saw no aircraft in the hangers and they expect them to be in the debris field closer to the site of bombing sometime in the future. So now I think at some point they will map the debris field of Akagi back to her bombing site, and if not found there, perhaps a much closer inspection of the hanger will be done.

"It is often said 「When Akagi was bombed, she completed attack preparations, and the bomb exploded when the attack force began to take off and the first aircraft left the ship.」 But it was wrong and the bomb actually fell when the first Zero for CAP was taking off."
Actually, I also believed in this "Five Minutes of Destiny'' story for a long time...
I've seen a reference, I think it was Ugaki's diary, in which Kusaka stated that the intention around 9am was for each carrier to provide 3 Zeros from the Midway strike to escort the main strike after 1030. In looking at the fighter records, I can identify the probable 3 pilots earmarked from Hiryu. Whichever the three intended from Kaga, they appear to have been thrown into the fight by 10, so they must have decided to substitute a trio from 6th Ku. With Soryu her records seem incomplete. My question is this. With Akagi, when you look at her fighter records, which three Zero fighter pilots from the Midway strike would have been the three that were reserved for the grand strike?

I have one question. What are the "flight records"? I have shown the action reports of Akagi flight units 飛行隊戦闘行動調書. It mentions there were 18 plots and Iizuka was not there. Akagi Val Unit had no backup pilot, so I concluded that Iizuka was not on board Akagi at that time. If you don't mind, could you show me your recollections of Iizuka?
On the air records of Akagi, my question is - are these the real ones that were aboard the morning of the battle, or are they records reconstructed by the Akagi's officers after the battle because the originals were destroyed in the battle?

Iizuka's recollections of his experiences at Midway are in the link I posted on this thread a while back. He says he was aboard Akagi at Midway, flew the mission against Midway, landed, and his plane was on deck when the carrier was bombed. He then returned to Japan and was transferred to USA air base after the battle. His account of Midway in context to the rest of his wartime experiences are relatively unimportant. I see zero reason why he would make such a small lie in such a large, amazing career. It makes no sense.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5868
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 01:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: IJN Aircraft losses 7 December 1941

Post by glenn239 » 16 Sep 2023 15:32

Rob Stuart wrote:
14 Sep 2023 22:07
Second, there is no way that "Akagi's aircraft", i.e. all of them, could have been on the flight deck. There was insufficient room.
At Pearl Harbor Akagi launched 27 strike aircraft and 9 Zeros for a total of 36 aircraft. At Midway she was intending to launch 17 Kates and 3 Zeros for a total of 20. So there was room for dive bombers, theoretically.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5868
Joined: 29 Apr 2005 01:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: IJN Aircraft losses 7 December 1941

Post by glenn239 » 16 Sep 2023 15:46

ShindenKai wrote:
15 Sep 2023 04:46
You have fantastically unrealistic expectations of an aircraft's structure strength VS 32 1,700lb bomb & torpedo explosions! -The enclosed space of the hangars compounds the explosive forces. It's comical really. It would be an absolute "hand-of-God" miracle for ANY aircraft within the hangars to be anything bigger than shredded & crushed pop cans in size. The only exceptions being maybe chunks of engines and landing gear legs.
Aircraft engines and other hardpoints such as wheel struts and machine guns are not destroyed in bomb explosions.

If Akagi's Kates were on the flight deck then only a maximum of seventeen 800kg bombs were in the hangers because the torpedo warheads would have been on the flight deck. Possibly less than that as transferal back to the magazines would have started as quickly as possible, and some might already have been removed. Of the 800kg bombs in the hangers, they might have been pile in groups, not fully spread out, and not detonated at their full strength.

Kaga's hangers look like what I would expect from 45 fully armed and fuelled aircraft blowing up inside them. Specifically, from what I gather of the podcasts, that Kaga's hangers are not even there. There just gone, as if the ship went to Midway with only the lower hull and no hangers attached. This matches accounts of the battle where Kaga had chain detonations all down the length of the hangers almost instantly from the moment of bombing. Akagi's hangers from what I understand are different. Much of the wall structure is still there, much of the floors of the hangers are still there. The flight deck is not there. That is consistent with fires and warhead detonations on the flight deck. There is no evidence of aircraft debris in the hangers. That is also consistent with aircraft fires on the flight deck.
The aircraft on deck won't have faired much better either. Not only would each plane be destroyed by it's own torpedo, but each explosion would contribute to the absolute erasure of those aircraft around it. In other words, it's not surprising in the least that aircraft weren't found.
If Akagi's aircraft were on the flight deck then as torpedoes detonated other aircraft would have been blown off the flight deck into the water.
The hit on the fantail - which is recorded in the Nagumo Report - would also have done the same thing. There will be debris - aircraft engines, chunks of wings, landing gear, that sort of thing - in the debris field. If they were in the hanger then there would be aircraft engines, etc., in the hangers and none in the debris field. So we need to see what's in the debris field.

Rob Stuart
Member
Posts: 1200
Joined: 18 Apr 2009 00:41
Location: Ottawa

Re: IJN Aircraft losses 7 December 1941

Post by Rob Stuart » 17 Sep 2023 00:14

glenn239 wrote:
16 Sep 2023 15:32
Rob Stuart wrote:
14 Sep 2023 22:07
Second, there is no way that "Akagi's aircraft", i.e. all of them, could have been on the flight deck. There was insufficient room.
At Pearl Harbor Akagi launched 27 strike aircraft and 9 Zeros for a total of 36 aircraft. At Midway she was intending to launch 17 Kates and 3 Zeros for a total of 20. So there was room for dive bombers, theoretically.
You cannot include the Zeros in these figures as if they were Kates or Vals, because the Zero needed a much shorter take-off run. If 27 was the maximum number of Kates which could have taken off with 800 kg of bombs or torpedoes and with the ship steaming at full speed (and I think there was a stronger wind on 7 December than on 4 June), and if the minimum take off run for the Val was similar to a Kate's, then only a maximum of 10 Vals could have been spotted in front of the 17 Kates. And even if they could have done that they would not have done it, because:

(1) Akagi's second strike on the enemy carriers would have consisted of less than a chutai of Vals

(2) The first strike on the enemy carriers would have been delayed by the need to re-arm, refuel and spot the Vals. (This delay would also lengthen the time before airborne CAP fighters which were out of ammo could land to re-arm.)

OpanaPointer
Financial supporter
Posts: 5660
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: IJN Aircraft losses 7 December 1941

Post by OpanaPointer » 17 Sep 2023 00:27

Less than 19 years until the 100th anniversary. A friend who lives near Kamogawa has invited me to sail from Tankan Bay to Hawaii, his treat. It would be interesting. 8-)
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

User avatar
fontessa
Member
Posts: 4509
Joined: 25 Mar 2011 16:29
Location: Yokohama, Japan

Re: IJN Aircraft losses 7 December 1941

Post by fontessa » 17 Sep 2023 03:29

glenn239 wrote:
16 Sep 2023 15:22
fontessa wrote:
14 Sep 2023 03:28
I have one question. What are the "flight records"? I have shown the action reports of Akagi flight units 飛行隊戦闘行動調書. It mentions there were 18 plots and Iizuka was not there. Akagi Val Unit had no backup pilot, so I concluded that Iizuka was not on board Akagi at that time. If you don't mind, could you show me your recollections of Iizuka?
On the air records of Akagi, my question is - are these the real ones that were aboard the morning of the battle, or are they records reconstructed by the Akagi's officers after the battle because the originals were destroyed in the battle?
Do you mean 飛行隊戦闘行動調書 was lost, and reconstructed later? And Iizuka was dropped at the time of the reconstruction? Below are the action reports of the fighter group / Akagi flight units. They look "rare". Hard to believe that they aer the reconstructed documents. The Val group action report I showed earlier also looks "rare".

97 赤城戦闘機隊 行動調書 0.jpg
97 赤城戦闘機隊 行動調書 1.jpg
97 赤城戦闘機隊 行動調書 2.jpg
97 赤城戦闘機隊 行動調書 3.jpg

fontessa
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by fontessa on 17 Sep 2023 06:27, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
fontessa
Member
Posts: 4509
Joined: 25 Mar 2011 16:29
Location: Yokohama, Japan

Re: IJN Aircraft losses 7 December 1941

Post by fontessa » 17 Sep 2023 05:51

glenn239 wrote:
16 Sep 2023 15:22
Iizuka's recollections of his experiences at Midway are in the link I posted on this thread a while back. He says he was aboard Akagi at Midway, flew the mission against Midway, landed, and his plane was on deck when the carrier was bombed. He then returned to Japan and was transferred to USA air base after the battle. His account of Midway in context to the rest of his wartime experiences are relatively unimportant. I see zero reason why he would make such a small lie in such a large, amazing career. It makes no sense.
He also says;
After completing the first wave attack, we were busy loading land bombs for the second wave attack. Just at that time a report came that an enemy task force was sighted. So a quick change from land bombs to ship bombs had to be made.
In actual Midway Operation, the second wave of attacks was scheduled to take off from Akagi and Kaga only with Ketas equipped with torpedoes, and from Soryu and Hiryu with Val equipped with non-armor-piercing 250kg bombs. So if Iizuka was truly on board the Akagi, there's no way he would write with blue letters. I've shown you a number of rational reasons, but I don't understand why you trust Iizuka so much. The blue text above is clearly a lie.

fontessa
Last edited by fontessa on 17 Sep 2023 06:52, edited 1 time in total.

Rob Stuart
Member
Posts: 1200
Joined: 18 Apr 2009 00:41
Location: Ottawa

Re: IJN Aircraft losses 7 December 1941

Post by Rob Stuart » 17 Sep 2023 06:49

glenn239 wrote:
16 Sep 2023 15:22
Iizuka's recollections of his experiences at Midway are in the link I posted on this thread a while back. He says he was aboard Akagi at Midway, flew the mission against Midway, landed, and his plane was on deck when the carrier was bombed. He then returned to Japan and was transferred to USA air base after the battle. His account of Midway in context to the rest of his wartime experiences are relatively unimportant. I see zero reason why he would make such a small lie in such a large, amazing career. It makes no sense.
When a veteran's account of a battle is convincingly refuted by other evidence, the explanation does not have to be that the veteran is lying. He could simply be mistaken. For instance, Fuchida says in Midway that the attack on Colombo consisted of 36 fighters, 54 dive bombers and 90 level bombers, a total of 180 aircraft. Every other Japanese source says that 127 aircraft attacked Colombo - 36 fighters, 38 dive bombers and 53 level bombers. If you were to say that Fuchida had no reason to lie about this, I would agree with you, but if we agree he was not lying it does not follow that Colombo was attacked by 180 aircraft. The evidence that it was attacked by 127 aircraft is irrefutable. The explanation is that Fuchida was mistaken. So why can't you accept that Iizuka's recollection about this was simply mistaken?

User avatar
fontessa
Member
Posts: 4509
Joined: 25 Mar 2011 16:29
Location: Yokohama, Japan

Re: IJN Aircraft losses 7 December 1941

Post by fontessa » 18 Sep 2023 01:35

I reread a Japanese nonfiction book published in 2014 that deals with Midway. Its selling point is "Interviewed about 40 former Japanese Navy personnel (including 8 who served on board the Akagi)". I was surprised to learn that the situation of Akagi's sinking were almost "Five Minutes of Destiny'' story. (Val is also included in the 2nd wave attack unit)
I also watched Emmerich's movie "Midway" again, which I saw a few years ago. Emmerich recently directed a sci-fi movie called "Moonfall," but he's much better at this type of movie. Now, regarding "Midway", it was expressed that the second wave attack team Akagi was not on the flight deck and that torpedoes and bombs were detonating inside the hangar. Is the research thorough or simply sloppy? . .


ミッドウェイ戦記.jpg

Midway 1.jpg
↑ Akagi

Midway 2.jpg

fontessa
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Eugen Pinak
Member
Posts: 1235
Joined: 16 Jun 2004 16:09
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine

Re: IJN Aircraft losses 7 December 1941

Post by Eugen Pinak » 18 Sep 2023 07:30

Rob Stuart wrote:
15 Sep 2023 13:52
Eugen Pinak wrote:
14 Sep 2023 19:39
Fontessa - here is a link on English translation of Iizuka story (links to parts are at the bottom of the page): https://j-aircraft.com/research/jimlans ... rward.html
Hey Eugen, this post of yours yesterday was your post number 1173 on AHS. My post of yesterday was my post 1174 on AHS. Are we twins or something? 8-)

Rob
Great minds tend to think alike, Rob :wink:

Eugen Pinak
Member
Posts: 1235
Joined: 16 Jun 2004 16:09
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine

Re: IJN Aircraft losses 7 December 1941

Post by Eugen Pinak » 18 Sep 2023 08:07

glenn239 wrote:
16 Sep 2023 15:32
Rob Stuart wrote:
14 Sep 2023 22:07
Second, there is no way that "Akagi's aircraft", i.e. all of them, could have been on the flight deck. There was insufficient room.
At Pearl Harbor Akagi launched 27 strike aircraft and 9 Zeros for a total of 36 aircraft. At Midway she was intending to launch 17 Kates and 3 Zeros for a total of 20. So there was room for dive bombers, theoretically.
I see you still don't bother to understand the sources, besides the parts you personally like :(
There was no "theoretically" in Kido Butai attack plans at Midway. EVERY source say "Akagi" was ordered to launch against US carriers only B5Ns and a flight of A6M: from Nagumo's report to Fuchida's part of Midway book. It means either they are lying or Iizuka is lying.
And, of course, there is a big difference between the launch distance of 6 A6M and 9 D3A. D3As not just require more takeoff distance, they are also lager and thus take more space of flying deck, reducing available space for takeoff. There was a reason "Akagi" and "Kaga" haven't launched 36 of their strike aircraft against Midway or before.
glenn239 wrote: Kaga's hangers look like what I would expect from 45 fully armed and fuelled aircraft blowing up inside them.
The problem is - it's simply not possible if "Fatal five minute" theory is correct. Kido Butai strike units were to be launched together. So if "Akagi" have empty hangars, so does "Kaga". Which is not the case.

Eugen Pinak
Member
Posts: 1235
Joined: 16 Jun 2004 16:09
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine

Re: IJN Aircraft losses 7 December 1941

Post by Eugen Pinak » 18 Sep 2023 08:17

OpanaPointer wrote:
17 Sep 2023 00:27
Less than 19 years until the 100th anniversary. A friend who lives near Kamogawa has invited me to sail from Tankan Bay to Hawaii, his treat. It would be interesting. 8-)
I soooo envy you! :D
Have a good trip! :thumbsup:

Eugen Pinak
Member
Posts: 1235
Joined: 16 Jun 2004 16:09
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine

Re: IJN Aircraft losses 7 December 1941

Post by Eugen Pinak » 18 Sep 2023 08:55

fontessa wrote:
17 Sep 2023 03:29
glenn239 wrote:
16 Sep 2023 15:22
fontessa wrote:
14 Sep 2023 03:28
I have one question. What are the "flight records"? I have shown the action reports of Akagi flight units 飛行隊戦闘行動調書. It mentions there were 18 plots and Iizuka was not there. Akagi Val Unit had no backup pilot, so I concluded that Iizuka was not on board Akagi at that time. If you don't mind, could you show me your recollections of Iizuka?
On the air records of Akagi, my question is - are these the real ones that were aboard the morning of the battle, or are they records reconstructed by the Akagi's officers after the battle because the originals were destroyed in the battle?
Do you mean 飛行隊戦闘行動調書 was lost, and reconstructed later? And Iizuka was dropped at the time of the reconstruction? Below are the action reports of the fighter group / Akagi flight units. They look "rare". Hard to believe that they aer the reconstructed documents. The Val group action report I showed earlier also looks "rare".
All 4 carriers of the Kido Butai used old pattern forms for their 行隊戦闘行動調書. Suddenly all their Midway kodochoshos are recorded in the new "18-9" pattern forms. Also the total lack of kodochoshos for routine patrol and CAP flights is telling. So yes, there is a serious possibility those kodochoshos are not original.
Of course, I'm not Glenn - I know, that if original kodochoshos were lost at Midway, ALL kodochoshos will be lost - not just for Midway operation. Also, it's physically impossible anybody could recreate so much details about flying operations from memory even on one carrier, yet alone on all 4 of them.
So if original kodochoshos were NOT lost at Midway, why are they different?
Fortunately we have an explanation in "Zuiho" kodochoshos - in part 1, page 24 of the file there is a note, that kodochoshos for June 1942 were "removed for the investigation"(??translation). Most probably the same happened with the kodochoshos of 4 carriers of the Kido Butai - though their combat kodochoshos were copied for the files before originals were removed.

Return to “Japan at War 1895-1945”