New answers tagged warfare
0
While the exposed belt holding the placard in position might be destroyed by the opponent, you have to ask yourself: is it worth it?
Destroying the belt will have some effect on the knight, since the placard will not sit in its proper place anymore. However, I doubt that the knight will be severly hampered. Reenactors with a suit of armour of this style ...
9
Considering the circumstances, definitely yes
Before we start, we must understand and define what kamikaze were. In its essence, kamikaze were form of anti-ship aerial attack. Of course, they were not only form of such attacks. In WW2 Japan had technology to perform conventional bomb or torpedo strikes using aircraft based both on land and sea (carriers and ...
-4
I'll go against the general opinion.
Yes, they were extremely effective in the end. The Emperor kept his position, and the war crime trials were done by Japanese tribunals. In spite of USA having the atomic bomb and Russian support.
The point was not only to cause losses, it was also to show a willingness to fight to the bitter end. For that goal they were ...
80
No.
The general argument goes something like this:
Japan was running out of trained pilots
Japan couldn't spare the fuel to properly train more pilots
But they had plenty of planes.
Thus untrained kamikaze pilots are more effective than untrained conventional pilots, and they used less fuel.
It can be argued that it was the most effective tactic for the ...
18
As a strategy (i.e. something to win the war with)?:
No. Japan should have avoided direct war with the US, as a question of national survival. Kamikazes were not going to help in the long run. They were only a symptom of Japan's hopeless "strategy" of inflicting unpalatable losses on the US and forcing the US to accept a draw and ceasefire.
As a ...
answered Apr 22 at 16:17
Italian Philosophers 4 Monica
6,0382 gold badges20 silver badges38 bronze badges
Top 50 recent answers are included
