Kamikaze/Tokkotai concepts

[NARSES2]

Interesting bit in the Operational Pedastal article in November's SAM - just got around to reading it.

The Italian's filled an SM 79 with explosives and RC gear and it was taken to altitude by the pilot who then bailed out. Flown to the convoy by a controller in a Can 1007Z. Meant to attack one of the carriers but due to problems with the rc ended up in the mountains of Algeria somewhere.

I knew nothing about these Italian efforts with rc at all before this. You live and learn.

Not a Mistel but you could go that route with a SM79 and any suitable Italian fighter.

[jcf]

Ambrosini A.R.

http://italianaircraftwwii.blogspot.com/2015/03/ambrosini-ar-assalto-radioguidato.html?m=1

[NARSES2]

Cheers Jon I'd completely forgotten about that. There's even a kit of it out there.

[tahsin]

There was this short debate about the merits of the armoured deck a while back and while thinking on it I noticed crash diving was indeed negative for penetration. I am not a man of numbers and yet it clearly made sense that the plane would have too much "area", dissipating the penetrative force as it is and stop the bomb itself going down into the vitals of the target ship. Turns out the Japanese concept was originally was releasing that puny 250 kg bomb just seconds before impact. So the Kamikaze concept did not actually was for crashing into ships but increasing accuracy to the maximum possible. And hence the Japanese were double hurt for using all those youngsters, untrained and no doubt mesmerised in their final dive, if they survived that far.

The source is a .pdf file noticed on Secret Projects on Russian anti-ship tactics for bombers.

[tahsin]

Well, you can always add a pipe underneath the two seat version of your fastest fighter to mimic the periscobe your backseater will need to guide. Lots of antennas, probably a second VHF set with the attendant wires and the inevitable pole sticking out. German radar sets always remind me of the TV antennas of the 1970s. Too, if you are not particularly afraid of hostile jamming with matching antennas on the bomber and some opening with as big a camera as it seems possible. Thinking of it, you might indeed have two down-periscobes for stereo vision, range finding, whatever. For the unmanned lower section that will clearly need a wingbreaker (just outbound your piston engines) but make sure you have visible "fixed" rocket exhausts for the attack run. If time and resouces available for a diorama it's naturally possible to have little men attaching the take-off / cruise wing to port or starboard and the other side clear with that wing still on a truck or dolly. Naturally, as per the traditions of this web-site, longer the better. Torpedoes might be likewise attached or waiting their turn on the side. You are not counting on surviving that long to crash into the hostile battleship or the carrier though it would be an useful bonus. And yes make sure that all the machine gun or cannon barrels sticking out of the nose are not properly aligned. If it was ever possible to sight them out of flak range it would be far cheaper to design an ASM and be done with it.