This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 06:13, December 17, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
I agree it is confusing, and it may not be correct. A few pages of the cited source are online, and the loss of Japanese pilots is less than would be expected, but many more of the supporting crew were also lost. I did not find support for the assertion in the online text, and therefore will remove it. I have ordered the book and should have it in a few weeks, and will revise the article then if needed. (The book does make an important point: The loss of Japanese pilots at Midway was less than the number lost in the war of attrition in the Solomon Islands.)
The Peattie does not have a full citation in the two footnotes which mention it, nor it is in the bibliography. Once I have the book I will correct that. Kablammo (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
The claim is technically false. The Ki-84 and Shiden were just as good as anything the Allies had. The DY4 was one of the fastest strike aircraft in the Pacific, if not the fastest. The "Kate" was no snail either. Please cite and fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A04:4A43:4A7F:5613:0:0:3DDC:B4AE (talk) 19:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
Response
I'd say the statement is generally true more than 'technically false'. Yes, the Japanese had developed aircraft as good as anything else in the skies. The problem for them was that by the later war they couldn't produce them in any kind of number - they lacked raw materials, tools, etc. It was much cheaper to patch up old planes, fuel 'em up for a one-way trip and sayonara. I do agree that the statement could be qualified.
RobotBoy66 (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
The Japanese air fleet was outdated in secondary ways. Even if we disregard these (which I won’t call inherently unfair), the fact that the Japanese had comparable design prototypes is irrelevant bc these never entered mass production and pretty much none ever even saw effective combat. It is a historical fact that the Japanese air fleet in being had fallen far behind the allies technologically and this situation did contribute significantly to the decision to implement/expand the Kamikaze program.
I’m gonna remove it bc there doesn’t seem to be much remaining disagreement plus the account that started this got blocked. OgamD218 (talk) 02:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
The first image, used for the page's thumbnail thingy, is not the best representation of a kamikaze. It just shows a carrier on fire - only when the context that the carrier got hit by a kamikaze does it make sense. I think we should replace it with a better image, a few of which are actually in the article. The "better image" should show the plane about to kamikaze.
For example we could use:
File:Kamikaze attacks USS Columbia (CL-56) in Lingayen Gulf on 6 January 1945 (NH 79449).jpg
File:Kamikaze attacks USS White Plains (CVE-66) on 25 October 1944 (80-G-288882).jpg
I agree. I think the existing images can be retained under a new first image, but I would reverse them, putting the pilots ahead of the damage they caused. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Found colorized footage filmed by naval personnel during a battle which looks suitable.
.jpg)
