Film Review: Hacksaw Ridge

By Seth Marshall

In his first film since Apocalypto (2006), director Mel Gibson has made a biopic about the first consciencious objector to win the Medal of Honor, Desmond Doss.

                Before going into the review of the film, some context is required. Doss won the Medal of Honor for his actions during the Battle of Okinawa. The last major campaign of World War II, Okinawa became the bloodiest battle of the war for American forces.  Okinawa is situated some 350 miles south of the Japanese mainland.  Okinawa was viewed as a necessary stepping stone to an invasion of Japan itself. The island had several airfields that would place allied aircraft much closer to Japan than bases in the Mariana islands and China- it could also be used as a staging location for ground and naval forces prior to an invasion.[1] Okinawa would also be the first island with a large Japanese civilian population- before the war, some 500,000 civilians were living on Okinawa.[2]  However, the island was heavily defended by some 150,000 Japanese forces, including 77,000 soldiers with the 32nd Army under the command of General Mitsuru Ushijima were reinforced with 20,000 “Boeitai”- Okinawa Home Guard conscriptees who were to be used for labor and support tasks. Additionally, 750 school boys were formed into a group called the “Tekketsu Kinnotai” –the “Blood and Iron Corps.”[3][4] The bulk of these forces were concentrated on the southern portion of the island, where a combination of rugged mountainous terrain and dense dug-in defensive preparations would make the area extremely difficult for American forces to take.

The landing zones for the Tenth Army and marine forces during the invasion of Okinawa.

The American movement during the Battle of Okinawa April 1-June 23.

                Against the Japanese defenders, the Americans assembled a combine Army and Marine force of 183,000 men, supported by numerous warships and aircraft from the Navy’s Task Force 58. The invasion, which began on April 1, 1945, was preceeded by a seven-day bombardment by both naval guns and aircraft.[5] The initial landings encountered only light resistance, and by the end of the first day, several airfields had been taken further inland. It wasn’t until April 4th that the Army’s XXIV Corps began encountered the well-prepared Japanese defenses further south. The Marines continued to push north, advancing relatively quickly until April 13th until they reached Mt Yae Take. After four days of fighting, the Marines had secured the northern end of Okinawa. In the south, fierce fighting continued to slow the American advance. Despite the Americans’ overwhelming superiority in firepower, the Japanese were able to maintain their line by retreating to underground bunker before reoccupying their previous positions. It was not until the night of April 23-24 that the Japanese withdrew from the first defensive line to their second. The high casualties being inflicted on the American forces prompted the movement of the 1st and 6th Marine Divisions into the front line, while the Army pulled its 27th Infantry Division off the line to make room for the reinforcements. That same day, the Japanese mounted an ill-advised counterattack. The Japanese 24th Infantry Division attacked the American lines in front of the 7th and 77th Infantry Divisions, and were met with intense fire. The counter-attack failed; some 7,000 Japanese soldiers were killed in the failed counterattack. It was in the weeks following this counterattack that Desmond Doss performed the actions which would earn him the Medal of Honor.

Two Marines carefully watch an Okinawan civilian surrendering.

An F4U Corsair drops napalm on a Japanese position while operating in close air support of Marine forces on the ground

A Stinson L-5 light observation plane flies over the ruins Naha, the largest city on Okinawa. Aircraft such as these operated as airborne artillery spotters.

In addition to the intense action on land, the Japanese launched both aircraft and ships against the American fleet. During the battle, hundreds of kamikaze planes were sent towards US ships, each driven by the desire to crash into an American warship. On April 6th, 400 Japanese planes took off from Kyushu in the Japanese home islands- some 300 were shot down by American planes and anti-aircraft fire.[6] The following day, the last sortie by the Imperial Japanese Navy was undertaken. In an effort to provide relieve to their forces on Okinawa, the IJN sent the super battleship Yamato, the heavy cruiser Yahagi, and eight destroyers on what amounted to a one-way mission known as Operation Ten-Go. With not enough fuel for a return trip, it was decided that Yamato would expend its main gun ammunition on the invasion forces before beaching itself, after which its crew would fight on foot. En route, the task force was attacked by waves of aircraft from the US fleet. Hit by numerous 1,000lbs bombs and deadly torpedoes, the Yamato finally capsized at 2:23PM after a massive internal magazine explosion. 2,500 of her crew went down with the ship, with only 269 survivors being saved. The remainder of the force suffered no better- Yahagi was hit by seven torpedoes and twelve bombs and sunk with heavy loss of life, and four of the eight destroyers were also sunk. For this success, the Americans lost 10 aircraft with 12 aircrew killed.[7] Kamikaze attacks continued through April, resulting in the loss of 1,100 aircraft. Towards the end of May, 896 kamikaze raids were launched at the American fleet and at captured airfields. In the end, nearly 4,000 planes were shot down by either anti-aircraft fire or fighter patrols. [8]

The Yamato's magazines explode due to internal fires- she sank with the majority of her crew.

                Doss was born in 1919 in Lynchburg, Virginia. Brought up as a Seventh-day Adventist, Doss’ religious beliefs in non-violence was cemented early in his life when he witnessed his father point a gun at his uncle. Doss’ mother put a stop to the confrontation by calling the police and telling Doss to hide the gun, but the event had a substantial impact on the young Doss, who thereafter vowed to never touch another gun.[9] In April 1942, he was drafted into the Army. Although he had worked in a shipyard and would have been eligible to stay there as a defense worker, he chose to go into the Army as a conscientious objector instead. Following a contentious period of training, Doss was assigned to the 307th Infantry Regiment, 77th Infantry Division and sent to the Pacific. While the film only shows Doss’ actions on Okinawa, he also served on Guam and Leyte. During this time, he earned a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart for his actions and for wounds sustained.[10]

Desmond Doss following the end of the war. 

                On April 28th, 1945, after securing Ie Shima Island, the 77th Division replaced the 96th Division in the line on Okinawa.[11] On May 1, Doss’ company scaled a 400 foot-high ridge known as Maeda Escarpment. His unit took heavy casualties from artillery, mortar and machinegun fire and withdrew. Doss, however, stayed behind. He later recalled, “I had these men up there and I shouldn’t leave ‘em… They were my buddies, some of the men had families, and trust me. I didn’t feel like I should value my life above my buddy’s. So I decided to stay with them and take care of as many as I could. I didn’t know how I was gonna do it.” After fashioning a sling with what rope he could find, Doss spent the next 12 hours saving as many men as a he could, lowering them one at a time to safety. By Doss’ own estimation, he eventually saved some 50 men. His commander wanted to credit him with saving 100, so the compromise figure of 75 was reached for his Medal of Honor citation.  After returning from the ridge, Doss participated in the final attack on the Maeda Escarpment on May 5th. Though the day was a Saturday and therefore the Sabbath, Doss agreed to forgo his normal practice of no work to take part in the attack, as he was the sole remaining medic in his company. However, he successfully requested that the assault be delayed in order for him to read his Bible and pray. [12]

Doss stands at the top of Maeda Escarpment after placing cargo nets on the side of the cliff- Doss was one of the volunteers who carried the net to the top.

Members of the 77th Infantry Division during a rainstorm on Okinawa.

                Several weeks later, on May 21, Doss was treating wounded soldiers when a hand grenade landed in the foxhole he was in. “They begin to throw these hand grenades… I saw it comin’. There was three other men in the hole with me. They were on the lower side, but I was on the other side lookin’ when they threw the thing. I knew there was no way I could get at it. So I just quickly took my left foot and threw it back to where I though the grenade might be, and throw my head and helmet to the ground. And not more than half a second later, I felt like I was sailin’ through the air. I was seein’ stars I wasn’t supposed to be seein’, and I knew my legs and body were blown up.”[13] Riddled with shrapnel, Doss was evacuated from the battlefield.

                The Battle of Okinawa would finally come to an end nearly a month after Doss was wounded. On the morning of June 22, General Ushijima committed seppuku along with his chief of staff, Lieutenant General Isamu Cho. After 82 days, the battle was over.[14] It was the costliest battle of the Pacific War for the United States- over 12,000 US servicemen were killed and nearly 37,000 wounded. The Navy sustained its heaviest casualties for a single battle during the war- 4,907 killed or missing, with 4600 wounded, along with 36 ships sunk and 368 damaged- a result of the intense kamikaze attacks.[15] Among the dead was General Simon Buckner, commander of the Tenth Army, killed on June 18th by an artillery shell.[16] However, Japanese losses were even more appalling- 107,000 killed, 7,400 taken prisoner, and 20,000 missing, possibly incinerated.[17] The worst losses were suffered by Okinawa civilians, of whom some 100,000 died during the battle.[18] The consideration of the battle’s ferocity ultimately played a factor in the US’ decision to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945.

                After the war ended, Doss was sent back to the US. On October 12th, 1945, he was presented the Medal of Honor by President Harry S. Truman. The war had taken a toll on Doss though. For five and a half years after the war he was in and out of hospitals attempting to recover from both his wounds and from tuberculosis which he had contracted on Leyte. Eventually, five of his ribs and one of his lungs were removed before he was finally released from the hospital in August 1951. He eventually became deaf, as a result he believed from the antibiotics that the military continued to prescribe to him. He received a disability pension from the military, but struggled to make ends meet. His wife took a full time job as a nurse, while worked a variety of odd-jobs including cabinet-making, fish farmer, salesman, and maintenance technician. In 1991,his wife was diagnosed with breast cancer. In November that year, Doss and his wife were involved in a car accident as he was driving her to a treatment session- his wife later passed away from injuries suffered in the crash. Doss remarried in 1993 to Francis Duman- they remained together until his death in 2006 at the age of 87.

President Harry Truman awards Doss the Medal of Honor on October 12, 1945.

                The film Hacksaw Ridge, which released on November 4th, is Mel Gibson’s first directorial effort since his 2006 film Apocalypto. James Garfield, known best for his roles in the The Social Network and both of the Amazing Spiderman films, stars as Desmond Doss. Supporting cast includes Sam Worthington as Captain Glover, Vince Vaughn as Sergeant Howell, and Hugo Weaving as Doss’ father. For the most part, Gibson has faithfully recreated the actual events surrounding Doss’ life, though there has been artistic license taken, particularly with regard to Doss’ court martial. While it is true that his superiors, including his company commander, Captain Glover, attempted to have him thrown out of the Army, they did not court-martial him. His superiors tried to have him kicked from the Army for “mental instability”, also known as a Section 8. However, when Doss was called to the hearing, he said that he could not accept a Section 8 because of his religion. His superior officers relented. He was also heckled endlessly by other soldiers in his unit, who frequently referred to him as “Holy Jesus” and “Holy Joe”. [19]Other officers tormented him as well- a Captain Cunningham threatened Doss with a court-martial for not completing rifle training. He later would deny Doss passes to see his wife and family. [20]

James Garfield stars as Desmond Doss.

                The other major departure from actuality was how it shows Doss is wounded. The film shows Doss as being wounded by a grenade during the final assault on Maeda Escarpment on May 5th, 1945. However, it was not until the night of May 21st that Doss was wounded, and under circumstances so extraordinary, that the actual events were apparently not included in the film because it was felt by Gibson that the audience would not believe them to be true after having watched him save so many soldiers by himself. After Doss attempted to kick a grenade away from his comrades and was wounded by shrapnel, he waited for five hours for fellow soldiers to reach him with a stretcher. As he was carried away, he saw another soldier more badly wounded than himself and gave up the stretcher for the other man. While waiting for another stretcher to arrive, Doss was wounded again when a sniper’s bullet that caused a compound fracture to his left arm. He used a fallen rifle as a split, then crawled for 300 yards to safety.[21]

                Despite these errors, the film is overall a good production. The combat scenes are very intense and of good quality, surprising for a film that was made with only $40 million (for reference ,Saving Private Ryan, released in 1998, was made with $70 million).[22] This being said, it would be a stretch to call this film truly great. It is certainly better than previous movies focusing on the Pacific War, but it seems to have fallen somewhat into the trap which has snared other more recent war films, and that is to make by-the-numbers war film that doesn’t distinguish itself from the pack.  Hacksaw Ridge is certainly a movie worth seeing, but not a dramatic trend breaker that differs much from contemporary war films.

Sources

1.       Frame, Rudy R., Jr. "MCA&F." Okinawa: The Final Great Battle of World War II | Marine Corps Association. Marine Corps Gazette, Nov. 2012. Web. 23 Nov. 2016

2.       Dong, Christopher. "Exploring Okinawa's World War II History." CNN. Cable News Network, 13 Mar. 2015. Web. 23 Nov. 2016.

3.       "Battle Of Okinawa: Summary, Fact, Pictures and Casualties." HistoryNet. N.p., 04 Aug. 2016. Web. 23 Nov. 2016.

4.       Tsukiyama, Ted. "THE HAWAI'I NISEI STORY Americans of Japanese Ancestry During WWII." Www.hawaii.edu. Hawaii Nisei Rights Movement, 2006. Web. 23 Nov. 2016.

5.    Hacksaw Ridge vs the True Story of Desmond Doss, Medal of Honor." HistoryvsHollywood.com. CTF Media, n.d. Web. 23 Nov. 2016.

6.       Goldstein, Richard. "Desmond T. Doss, Heroic War Objector, Dies." The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 25 Mar. 2006. Web. 23 Nov. 2016.

7.       US Naval Institute Staff. "Mel Gibson, Vince Vaughn Talk Battle of Okinawa Movie 'Hacksaw Ridge'" USNI News. Unleashed Technologies, 05 Nov. 2016. Web. 23 Nov. 2016.

[1] https://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/2012/11/okinawa-final-great-battle-world-war-ii#

[2] http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/12/travel/okinawa-world-war-ii-travel/

[3] http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-okinawa-operation-iceberg.htm

[4] http://nisei.hawaii.edu/object/io_1149316185200.html

[5] http://nisei.hawaii.edu/object/io_1149316185200.html

[6] http://nisei.hawaii.edu/object/io_1149316185200.html

[7] www.warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/wwii/japanese-battleship-yamato-make-its-final-stand/

[8] http://nisei.hawaii.edu/object/io_1149316185200.html

[9] http://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/hacksaw-ridge/

[10] http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/25/us/desmond-t-doss-87-heroic-war-objector-dies.html

[11] www.history.army.mil/html/forcestruc/cbtchron/cc/077id.htm

[12] http://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/hacksaw-ridge/

[13]  http://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/hacksaw-ridge/

[14] http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-okinawa-operation-iceberg.htm

[15] http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/12/travel/okinawa-world-war-ii-travel/

[16] http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-okinawa-operation-iceberg.htm

[17] www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/the-pacific-war-1941-to-1945/the-battle-of-okinawa/

[18] http://nisei.hawaii.edu/object/io_1149316185200.html

[19] http://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/hacksaw-ridge/

[20] http://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/hacksaw-ridge/

[21] http://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/hacksaw-ridge/

[22] https://news.usni.org/2016/11/03/mel-gibson-vince-vaughn-talk-movie-hacksaw-ridge

Tools of War: F-4 Phantom

By Seth Marshall

Designed in the late 1950s, the McDonnell-Douglas F-4 Phantom II became one of the most prolific fighter aircraft of the Cold War. Serving in numerous air forces around the world, the aircraft saw extensive service in a number of large regional conflicts, including the Vietnam War, the Yom Kippur War, and the Iran-Iraq War.

                The origins of the F-4 began in the 1950s. Originally, the goal of the program was to increase the performance of the F3H Demon, an aircraft already in the Navy’s inventory. In 1955, the Navy requested that McDonnell provide two YA-H1s, as the F-4 was then referred to, from an all-weather single-seat fighter armed with cannons to an all-weather two-seater fighter armed with missiles and no cannons. The aircraft at this juncture became known by the designation F4H-1. Development continued through the late 1950s and the Phantom made its first flight on May 27, 1958. Soon after its first flight, the new fighter began setting records. On December 6, 1959, it set a new absolute world altitude record of 98,556ft. Less than two years later on December 5, 1961, it set a sustained altitude of 66,443ft over a 25km course.[1] An additional record set in 1961 was the world speed record, set at 1,604 mph on a 15km course.[2]

                While the Phantom had begun breaking records, some aerodynamic instability in the design were revealed during flight testing. Before production began, several changes to the original design were implemented. The outer halves of the wings were modified to have a twelve-degree dihedral, meaning that those sections of the wings were angled up twelve degrees. Additionally, flaperons, a type of aileron, and leading-edge slats were added. The horizontal tail surfaces were given a twenty-three-degree anhedral, meaning that the wings were angled downwards, in order to accommodate for the airflow coming from the wing.[3] Following the modifications, the first production F-4s were some of the largest and heaviest fighter aircraft produced up to that time. It was just over 58 feet long from nose to tail, with a wingspan of 38.5 feet, and with a height of 16.5 feet. Powered by two General Electric J79 engines producing 17,900lbs of thrust in afterburner, the production Phantom was capable of a maximum speed of 1450mph. The massive amount of power made the Phantom capable of carrying large amounts of ordnance- up to 16,000lbs of external stores including bombs, missiles, external fuel tanks, and nuclear weapons.[4]

An F4H-1 Phantom during carrier trials.

                Production began in 1961 with the F-4B. Initially, only the Navy and the Marine Corps bought the Phantom. However, under pressure from Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, who was insisting on standardization across services, the Air Force evaluated a pair of F-4s in 1962. Initially referred to by the Air Force as the F-110 Spectre, the first F-4Cs were delivered to the Air Force in 1963.[5]

Not long after the first F-4s began to arrive in operational units, US involvement in the Vietnam conflict began to dramatically escalate. After several air-to-air engagements, it quickly became apparent that the F-4 had a number of problems. At the time of the Vietnam conflict, air-to-air missiles were still in their infancy and frequently did not work.  “Studies showed that 45 percent of Vietnam-era AIM-7s and 37 percent of AIM-9s failed either to launch or lock on, and after evasive maneuvers, the probability of achieving a kill fell to eight percent and 15 percent for the two types, respectively. The Falcon missiles were even worse, and the Pentagon later withdrew them from service.”[6]  Additionally, the MiGs that the Phantom encountered in Vietnam were very different types of aircraft. The three designs most commonly seen overVietnam, the MiG-17, MiG-19, and MiG-21 were all developed as interceptor aircraft- they were much lighter, far more maneuverable (particularly in the case of the MiG-17), and armed with several cannons. Consequently, the Phantom had to engage enemy aircraft at subsonic speeds where it was at a disadvantage.[7]  Because of the failure of many missiles to lock on to their targets, let alone hit them, as well as the nature of the dogfights taking place in the skies above Vietnam, many pilots found themselves wishing that the Phantom had been equipped with a built-in gun. An interim fix came about in the form of a gun pod suspended under the belly of the aircraft; however, this was a temporary fix, as the gun pod had no gun sight, requiring the pilot to judge aim based on the trajectory of the tracers. Eventually, when it came to designing the F-4E, the 20mm General Electric Vulcan M61 cannon was included.[8]

A USAF F-4 Phantom is hit by an SA-2 SAM over Vietnam.

During the Vietnam War, USAF F-4s claimed to have shot down 107 MiGs while losing 33 of their own aircraft. Navy F-4s had a better kill-ration, shooting down 40 MiGs while losing seven. Additionally, Marine Corps F-4 pilots claimed an additional three MiGs shot down. However, MiGs were not the greatest threat to American aircraft over Vietnam- with large numbers of surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) such as the SA-2 and a tremendous amount of AAA guns, 474 F-4s from all branches of service were lost to ground fire. The high loss rate to missiles and AAA fire was due to the increasing usage of the F-4 as a fighter-bomber- supporting friendly troops on the ground in close-air-support missions and interdiction missions brought the Phantoms down to much lower altitudes, making them more susceptible to ground fire.[9] As a result of experience in the Vietnam War, both the Air Force and Navy implemented their own programs to increase pilots’ capabilities to survive a dogfight- the Navy started its Fighter Weapons School, more popularly known as TOPGUN, and the Air Force began incorporating the Red Flag exercise to bolster its existing Weapons School. Additionally, the Air Force worked to improve its Weapon System Evaluation Program (WSEP) to resolve the problems with its air-to-air missiles.

An F-4 Phatom loaded with fuel tanks and four Sparrow missiles patrols the skies above Vietnam.

In the years that followed the Vietnam War, the Phantom was upgraded several times. In the 1970s, F-4Es began to be modified to the F-4G standard in order to make them suitable for the Air Force’s Wild Weasel mission. These types of aircraft were tasked with supression of the radar systems used by enemy anti-air systems. Over thirty years after it was designed, a number of F-4Gs took part in Operation Desert Storm in 1991, carrying out Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD) mission to eliminate air defense radars in Iraq. Five years later, the US Air Force became the last branch of the US military to retire the Phantom. However, the F-4 continued to soldier on with the US military in a different role- worn-down Phantoms were converted to target drones (QF-4s) and expended over target ranges. Over 200 F-4s were converted to target drones and continued to be operated until August 2016, when their role was finally taken over by early-model F-16s.[10]

Two F-4G Wild Weasels fly in formation during the 1980s. Phantoms like these eliminated Iraqi radar systems early in the Gulf War conflict, allowing other aircraft to carry out follow on strike missions.

A QF-4 Phantom in the early 1980s.

A QF-4 Phantom is expended via an air-to-air missile during a test.

While the US military was the primary user of the Phantom, it was by no means the only one. Hundreds of Phantoms flew with over a dozen air forces around the world: Australia, Egypt, Great Britain, Germany, Greece, Iran, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Spain, and Turkey all flew F-4 Phantoms. The two most prolific foreign users of the Phantom were Israel and Iran.

 In late December 1968, an agreement was reached to sell 50 F-4s to the Israeli government for $200 million.  Eventually, Israel would purchase over 200 F-4s from the US.[11] The Phantom would subsequently take a main role for the IAF during the War of Attrition in the early 1970s and during the Yom Kippur War.  The Israeli Phantoms were first involved in combat on July 30, 1970. During a dogfight over the Gulf of Suez, several Phantoms shot down five MiG-21s.[12] During the Yom Kippur War in 1973, Phantoms saw heavy use, frequently engaging in dogfights with Egyptian and Syrian fighters. However, Arab forces had by this time been equipped with large numbers of Soviet-built SAM systems, including the SA-2, and these took a toll on IAF Phantoms- at least 33 were shot down by the missiles.[13] As Israel began purchasing more modern fighters such as the F-15 and F-16 in the late 1970s and early 1980s, IAF Phantoms were increasingly used as strike aircraft rather than fighters. Upgraded through the 1980s, the IAF continued to fly the Phantom until retiring it in 2004.

Two Israeli F-4 Phantoms fly in formation.

The largest foreign user of the Phantom was Iran. Prior to the revolution, Iran purchased nearly 230 F-4s of various models. In the 1980s, Iran obtained an additional 23 used Phantoms from the US through the clandestine “Iran-Contra” agreement.[14] These aircraft were procured during the Iran-Iraq War, which lasted from 1980-1988. Iranian F-4s, along with other American-built aircraft purchased prior to the revolution, were heavily relied upon during the conflict with Iraq. The IRIAF’s ability to maintain and successfully operate the fighter came as a surprise of Western intelligence, who did not think that the Iranians had the ability to keep the complex aircraft in the air, particularly given the purge of western-trained pilots and mechanics that had occurred following the revolution.[15]  Though precise records are difficult to obtain, it is known the Iranian Air Force used Western-built aircraft to great effect, including the F-4, though it seems the F-14 was Iran’s primary air dominance fighter aircraft. Still, several Iranian F-4 pilots are thought to have shot down several Iraqi aircraft during the war. Nearly 30 years after the end of the Iran-Iraq War, the F-4 remains one of the main aircraft of the IRIAF, and has seen recent action in air strikes against ISIS targets in Iraq.[16] In 2009, it was reported that the IRIAF continues to operate 82 F-4s.[17]

A IRIAF Phantom prepares to land. Though many purges occurred following the revolution in Iran, Iran has successfully maintained its fleet of Phantoms for several decades.

Though it entered service 56 years ago, the F-4 remains in service with several air forces around the world, including Greece, Iran, South Korea, and Turkey. With 5,195 aircraft built, the Phantom is one of the most numerous jet fighter aircraft ever built.[18] Out of the numerous aircraft types that were developed as so-called third generation fighters, perhaps none saw as much action nor as much service as the F-4.  It remains today an iconic aircraft of the Cold War.

Sources

1.       Dwyer, Larry. "McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II." McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II. N.p., 10 Mar. 2008. Web. 29 Oct. 2016.

2.       By. "Boeing." : Historical Snapshot: F-4 Phantom II Fighter. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Oct. 2016.

3.       Torrini, Rudolph Emilio. "The F-4 Is a Great Fighter With a Bad Reputation." War Is Boring. N.p., 25 June 2016. Web. 29 Oct. 2016.

4.       Haskew, Micheal. "Site Navigation." Warfare History Network. Soverign Media, 31 Jan. 2016. Web. 29 Oct. 2016.

5.       Cenciotti, By David. "USAF QF-4 Phantom Is Shot at by an F-35 with Two AIM-120s during Last Unmanned Mission (and Survives)." The Aviationist. N.p., 31 Aug. 2016. Web. 29 Oct. 2016.

6.       HistoryNet. "McDonnell F-4 Phantom: Essential Aircraft in the Air Warfare in the Middle East | HistoryNet." HistoryNet. N.p., 13 Apr. 2016. Web. 29 Oct. 2016.

7.       Goebel, Greg. "[3.0] Phantom In Foreign Service." [3.0] Phantom In Foreign Service. N.p., 01 Jan. 2016. Web. 29 Oct. 2016.

8.       MacAskill, Ewen. "Ingenuity Keeps Iran's Vietnam-war-era Planes Flying in Fight against Isis." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 03 Dec. 2014. Web. 29 Oct. 2016.

[1] http://www.aviation-history.com/mcdonnell/f4.html

[2] http://www.boeing.com/history/products/f-4-phantom-ii.page

[3] http://www.aviation-history.com/mcdonnell/f4.html

[4] http://www.boeing.com/history/products/f-4-phantom-ii.page

[5] http://www.aviation-history.com/mcdonnell/f4.html

[6] https://warisboring.com/the-f-4-is-a-great-fighter-with-a-bad-record-f4757f5e91e2#.pk5nn1chv

[7] http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/military-history/the-f-4-phantom-vs-the-mig-21/

[8] http://www.aviation-history.com/mcdonnell/f4.html

[9] https://warisboring.com/the-f-4-is-a-great-fighter-with-a-bad-record-f4757f5e91e2#.pk5nn1chv

[10] https://theaviationist.com/2016/08/31/usaf-qf-4-phantom-is-shot-at-by-an-f-35-with-two-aim-120s-during-last-unmanned-mission-and-survives/

[11] http://www.historynet.com/mcdonnell-f-4-phantom-essential-aircraft-in-the-air-warfare-in-the-middle-east.htm

[12] http://www.historynet.com/mcdonnell-f-4-phantom-essential-aircraft-in-the-air-warfare-in-the-middle-east.htm

[13] http://www.airvectors.net/avf4_3.html#m3

[14] http://www.airvectors.net/avf4_3.html#m3

[15] http://www.historynet.com/mcdonnell-f-4-phantom-essential-aircraft-in-the-air-warfare-in-the-middle-east.htm

[16] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/03/iran-vietnam-era-planes-isis

[17]

[18] http://www.aviation-history.com/mcdonnell/f4.html

Film Review: Anthropoid

Anthropoid Film Review

In late 1941, Czech soldiers parachuted into occupied Czechoslovakia and prepared to assassinate Rheinhard Heydrich one of the highest-ranking officials in the Nazi regime. A recent British-Czech film, Antrhopoid, has brought this event to the silver screen with surprising historical accuracy. Reader beware, spoilers follow.

                On the morning of May 27, 1942, Rheinhard Heydrich was riding in the passenger seat of his black Mercedes convertible as his driver, SS-Obersharfsfuhrer Johannes Klein, drove him through the streets of Prague, in occupied Czechoslovakia. As the vehicle approached a sharp turn along Kirchmayer street, a man stepped in front of the vehicle holding a British-made Sten submachine gun. This was Josef Gabcik, a Czech military officer who had trained with the British SOE before returning to his homeland. Gabcik attempted to fire his weapon at Heydrich; the weapon jammed. As Klein stomped on the brakes and Heydrich stepped from the car with his pistol unholstered and aimed at Gabcik, a second Czech officer, Jan Kubis, threw a grenade at Heydrich’s car. The grenade exploded, sending fragments tearing through the car and wounding both Heydrich and Klein. Both Germans nonetheless returned fire, causing the Czechs to flee- Klein pursued Gabcik until Gabcik wounded him twice with a pistol. Both Czechs were able to evade their pursuers. Meanwhile, Heydrich had collapsed next to the car. Suffering from numerous internal injuries, Heyrdich was rushed to a hospital. A week later, after several operations, Heydrich lapsed into a coma, likely brought on by sepsis. He died early the next morning, June 4, 1942. Heyrdich, an SS-Obergruppenfuhrer who was the head of Germany’s security services and was the acting Reichsprotecktor of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, was the highest-ranking Nazi official to be assassinated during the war.[1] While the event has been featured in past films, a new film, simply titled Anthropoid, has sought to bring an accurate interpretation of the assassination to modern audiences.

REINHARD HEYDRICH WAS ONE OF THE HIGHEST-RANKING OFFICIALS IN THE NAZI HIERARCHY. RESPONSIBLE IN PART FOR THE CREATION THE FINAL SOLUTION (THE EXTERMINATION OF JEWS IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS), HEYDRICH ARRIVED IN PRAGUE IN SEPTEMBER 1941 AS DEPUTY REICH PROTECTOR OF THE PROTECTORATE OF BOHEMIA AND MORAVIA. ONE OF THE MOST FEARED AND HATED OF THE NAZIS, HE WOULD BE THE HIGHEST-RANKING MEMBER OF THE REGIME TO BE KILLED.

THE REMNANTS OF HEYDRICH'S CAR FOLLOWING THE ASSASSINATION. THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE GRENADE BLAST IS EVIDENT- PIECES OF THE CAR AS WELL AS GRENADE SHRAPNEL WERE PROPELLED INTO THE INTERIOR AND INTO HEYDRICH. 

                Anthropoid was directed by Sean Ellis, a British director whose best-known efforts include the short film Cashback and the crime film Metro Manila. Produced on the relatively low budget of $9 million, the most notable star of the film is Cillian Murphy, known his roles in films such as Batman Begins, 28 Days Later, and Inception, who portrays Josef Gabcik.  Additionally, Irish actor Jamie Dornan plays Jan Kubis and Czech actress Anna Geislerova plays Lenka Fafkova, another member of the resistance. Thanks to the preservation of numerous areas in Prague, Ellis was able to film Anthropoid in many city districts and locales that in large part have not changed since the events of the film in 1941-1942.[2]

CILLIAN MURPHY, ON THE LEFT, AND JAMIE DORNAN, ON THE RIGHT, PLAYED CZECH SOLDIERS JOSEF GABCIK AND JAN KUBIS RESPECTIVELY.

JOSEF GABCIK, PICTURED PRIOR TO JUMPING INTO OCCUPIED CZECHOSLOVAKIA.

JAN KUBIS, ALSO PICTURED BEFORE JUMPING INTO OCCUPIED CZECHOSLOVAKIA.

                The real-life Operation Anthropoid was set in motion on December 28, 1941, when several parachutists, including Gabcik and Kubis, jumped from a RAF Halifax bomber and landed near the village of Nehvidzy to the east of Prague.[3] Equipped with small arms and several grenades and small explosives,  the team explored several possible methods of assassinating Heydrich for several months, none of which turned out to be practical. However, in April 1942, Heydrich moved his quarters from Prague Castle to a Chateau in Panenske Brezany, which meant that his driver would have to alter his route to Heydrich’s office. The sharp corner was chosen by the resistance as their ambush point, and on May 27, 1942, they carried out their attempt on Heydrich’s life.  Later that day, a civil state of emergency was declared, and posters began to circulate in Prague demanding that the perpetrators for the act be caught. The assassins hid successfully for several days, occasionally moving to more secure locations. The seven men eventually ended up taking refuge in the Orthodox Church of Saints Cyril and Methodius.[4] Unfortunately, Karel Curda, a member of the group who was captured by the Gestapo not long after the group attempted to kill Heydrich, betrayed the names and contacts of the group to the Germans for a bounty. The Gestapo subsequently tortured several members of the Moravec family, who had sheltered the parachutists for months before they moved to the church. After obtaining the group’s location, on June 18, 1942 several reserve units were ordered to secure the area surrounding the church, then take it by force. A firefight between several Czechs on guard and the Germans ensued and lasted for fourteen hours before they were finally overwhelmed and either killed or committed suicide to prevent from being captured. The remaining Czechs, hidden in the church’s crypt, were discovered and committed suicide after exhausting their ammunition. The seven Czech soldiers had killed fourteen German soldiers and wounded numerous others before they were finally killed.[5] The Germans, not satisfied with the deaths of all of those involved in the plot, carried out reprisals on numerous Czech towns, including most famously the town of Lidice, whose population of 1200 was either killed or deported, and the town completely razed to the ground.[6] Ultimately, 13,000 Czechs were arrested and 5,000 killed as reprisal for the death of Heydrich.[7]

THE GERMANS USED EQUIPMENT FROM THE PRAGUE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO PUMP TEAR GAS INTO THE CHURCH'S CRYPT IN AN ATTEMPT TO FORCE THE LAST GROUP OF CZECHS OUT.

THE GERMANS USED EQUIPMENT FROM THE PRAGUE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO PUMP TEAR GAS INTO THE CHURCH'S CRYPT IN AN ATTEMPT TO FORCE THE LAST GROUP OF CZECHS OUT.

THE EXTERIOR OF THE CHURCH AS IT APPEARS TODAY. STILL POCKMARKED WITH BULLET HOLES, A MEMORIAL IS IN PLACE ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE CHURCH AS A REMINDER OF THE LAST STAND OF THE ASSASSINS.

                While many contemporary films at times take quite liberal use of artistic license when portraying historical events, this is most certainly not the case with Anthropoid. Zdenek Spitalnik, a member of Prague’s Military History Institute, functioned as a historical advisor on the film.[8] His involvement, coupled with the producer’s and director’s apparent desires to adhere closely to the actual events, are plainly evident. The end result is very true to the actual events of the assassination attempt. While not every detail can possibly be covered in a two hour film, Anthropoid has succeeded in provided an accurate representation of the operation. Prior to seeing the film, I must confess that I had not previously heard of it. I was pleasantly surprised with this European film, and would recommend this well-crafted historical thriller to those looking for a refreshing historical film.

Sources

1.       "Anthropoid (2016)." History vs. Hollywood. CTF Media, 2016. Web. 3 Oct. 2016.

2.       "Anthropoid (2016)." IMDb. IMDb.com, 2016. Web. 03 Oct. 2016.

3.       Rothman, Lily. "Anthropoid Historical Adviser on Why the True Story Matters."Time. Time, 12 Aug. 2016. Web. 03 Oct. 2016.

4.       Lisciotto, Carmelo. "The Killing of Reinhard Heydrich! Http://www.HolocaustResearchProject.org." The Killing of Reinhard Heydrich! Http://www.HolocaustResearchProject.org. H.E.A.R.T., 2013. Web. 03 Oct. 2016.

[1] http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/nazioccupation/heydrichkilling.html

[2] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4190530/?ref_=rvi_tt

[3] http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/nazioccupation/heydrichkilling.html

[4] http://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/anthropoid/ 10/3/16

[5] http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/nazioccupation/heydrichkilling.html

[6] http://time.com/4439069/operation-anthropoid-historical-adviser/

[7] http://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/anthropoid/ 10/3/16

[8] http://time.com/4439069/operation-anthropoid-historical-adviser/

Tools of War: The Il-2 Shturmovik

During the Second World War, the Western Allies chose to place a focus on heavy strategic bombers. The Soviet Union chose to pursue a different path, placing an emphasis on attack aircraft. The Ilyushin Il-2 Shturmovik became not only the most prolific example of this type of aircraft, it became the most widely produced aircraft in history.

By Seth Marshall

            While both the United States Army Air Corps and Royal Air Force pursued the design and production of heavy bombers during the interwar period with the intention of launching strategic bombing campaigns with the outbreak of war, the Soviet Air Force (VVS) concentrated on tactical aircraft instead. The VVS’ interest in a low-flying anti-tank aircraft was prevalent through the 1930s and manifested itself with the work by Soviet design bureaus. A precursor to the Il-2 was the R-5Sh Shturmovik, a biplane aircraft designed by Nikolai Polikarpov in the 1920s. Originally, the aircraft was to be a reconnaissance aircraft and light bomber, but it was converted to a ground attack version with the addition a forward-firing machine gun, twin machine guns mounted in the observer position, and four obliquely-firing machine guns, and wing racks that could hold up to 500kg of bombs.[1] Though the aircraft served in the Spanish Civil War and during the border skirmishes against the Japanese in Mongolia, it was underpowered and lacked the endurance to loiter over the battlefield.

            In 1938, the VVS issued another request for an anti-tank aircraft to its design bureaus. Two design teams submitted design proposals. The first, led by Sergei Vladimirovich Ilyushin fro mthe Soviet Central Design Burea, proposed a two-seat aircraft designated “TsKB-55” or “CKB-55.” Earlier VVS tactical aircraft had been limited in performance by the weight of armor plating added to the airframe. Illyushin got around this problem by constructing the airframe itself from steel armor. Illyushin’s aircraft first flew on October 2, 1939. The aircraft encountered some problems at first, the most critical of which was the powerplant. The original engine was a supercharged-AM-35 V-12 engine providing 1,370 HP. It was determined that the supercharger was unnecessary, as the aircraft was intended for low-level tactical use, and it was deleted. The engine was replaced with the AM-38 engine, which provided 1,680 HP.[2] Additionally, the rear seat position and section of the fuselage was removed to reduce weight. Armor on the aircraft was concentrated around the engine and cockpit. The aircraft was fitted with four internal bomb bays which could each hold a 100kg bomb, and could also carry bombs externally. The aircraft was also armed with two 7.62mm ShKAS machine guns and two 20mm ShVAK cannons, which were fitted in the wings.[3]The aircraft was redesignated the TsKB-57. Trials with the newly modified aircraft began in October 1940. The design changes greatly improved the performance of the aircraft.

A competing team under Pavel Sukhoi also designed a two-seat aircraft to meet the needs of the VVS, powered by a radial M-71 engine, known as the Su-6.[4] This aircraft was not ready for trails as early as the Il-2, thanks in part to large numbers of the engine not being available. The first prototype was completed in early 1941. In March, flight testing began- the Su-6 surpassed the Il-2’s performance in airspeed, rate of climb, and take off and landing. However, the aircraft was not armed with cannon and did not possess the ability to carry rockets. With the start of the war, progress was further delayed on this aircraft when the engine reached the end of its life expectancy. Flight testing continued with a second prototype during 1942-1943, but again engine production difficulties delayed putting the aircraft into production. Finally, the Sukhoi team installed an AM-42 inline engine, which degraded the performance of the aircraft. Additionally, Illyushin had at that time began the introduction of the Il-10, which surpassed the Su-6 in nearly all aspects. As a result, the Su-6 was finally cancelled in 1944.[5]

The Sukhoi Su-6, competitor to the Il-2. The initial version had superior performance to the Ilyushin design, but problems with development and production of the M-71 engine meant that the Il-2 went into production instead of the Su-6.

            As the Su-6 lagged behind in flight testing, the Il-2 was put into production. The first production Il-2 was completed at the Zavod No. 18 factory at Voronezh. As the first dedicated attack aircraft, or Shturmovik (literally, “ground attack plane”), within the VVS, the Il-2 was to begin replacing aging biplanes such as the Polikarpov I-15bis and I-153.

“The Il-2 was central to the VVS RKKA’s rearmament plans, with 11 attack aviation regiments scheduled to be equipped with Shturmoviks within five frontline military districts by the end of 1941. Six other regiments deployed further from the front, and in the far eastern regions of the USSR, were to convert to the Il-2 by mid-1942. In addition, eight short-range bomber regiments were to also have re-equipped with the type by early 1942.”[6]

Despite these ambitious plans, by the time of the German invasion on June 22, 1941, only 249 Il-2s had been built, with only 70 of these actually in service, and only 20 of those in the areas that were in contact with the Germans. Those units that were equipped with Il-2s did not have the training or personnel to effectively utilize their new aircraft. [7]

The original Il-2 was a single-seat design that had omitted the rear-gunner position in order to save weight- ultimately this would cost the lives of many pilots.

A single-seater Il-2, painted in whitewash to blend into the snow-covered landscape. This aircraft has been equipped with skis to make it more suitable to the crude runways that would have been coated in ice and snow.

            The invasion added a sense of urgency to production, even though flight testing continued. While only 249 Shturmoviks had been produced before the outbreak of war, during the rest of the year, 1,293 more were built.[8] As Shturmovik units entered combat, strengths and weaknesses of the Illyushin design were revealed. Early Shturmovik units took heavy losses when engaged by Luftwaffe fighters- the deletion of the rear gunner position during the flight testing phase left the relatively slow-flying Il-2 quite vulnerable to attacks from the rear. As a result, early in the war Il-2s on average survived only nine missions.[9] The losses were curtailed with the addition of a rear gunner armed with a 12.7mm machine gun. Additionally, the 20mm wing-mounted cannons, which had been found lacking in serious stopping power, were replaced with two 23mm VYa cannon. The Shturmovik’s engine was also upgraded with the AM-38F, which provided 1,750 HP. Finally, the aircraft’s armor was increased from 700kg to 950kg. Following these modifications, the Il-2 was redesignated the Il-2M3. This model would become the most produced Shturmovik of the war.[10]

The redesigned Shturmovik, designated as the Il-2M3. The most notable improvement was the addition of a rear gunner

The rear gunner's position- the 12.7mm gun offered an increased chance of survival for the Il-2, though many gunners were killed in their relatively exposed position.

            As 1941 progressed, Il-2 production struggled to meet the demands of the VVS. Frustrated with the sluggish pace of construction, Josef Stalin sent an infamous message to two plant managers:

“You have let down our country and our Red Army. You have not manufactured Il-2s until now. The Il-2 aircraft are necessary for our Red Army now, like air, like bread. Shenkman produces one Il-2 a day and Tretiakov build one or two MiG-3s daily. It is a mockery of our country and the Red Army. I ask you not to try the government’s patience, and demand that you manufacture more Il-2s. I warn you for the last time.”[11]

Eventually, no doubt partially motivated by Stalin’s forboding letter, Il-2 factories began churning out new aircraft. By 1943, one third of Soviet-built combat aircraft were Il-2s.[12] When production of the Il-2 ceased in November 1944, over 36,000 had been built, making it the most prolific combat aircraft in history.[13]

A group of Il-2 pilots discuss the results of a mission after landing.

            It comes as no surprise that a tactical aircraft built in such large numbers saw very extensive combat service during the war. Il-2s were frequently called upon to attack German columns and soften up positions. When the Soviets launched Operation Neptune, the counter-attack which would cut off the Sixth Army in Stalingrad, Shturmoviks flew some 1,000 sorties from November 19-23, despite the blizzard conditions. When the weather cleared on the 24th, the Shturmoviks increased their operational tempo, flying over 6,000 sorties from November 24-December 1st.[14] During the Battle of Kursk in July 1943, Shturmoviks claimed large numbers of vehicles destroyed.

“Il-2s destroyed 70 tanks of the 9th Panzer Division in a mere 20 minutes, inflicted losses of 2,000 men and 270 tanks in two hours of attack on the 3rd Panzer Division, and effectively destroyed the 17th Panzer Division in four hours of strikes, smashing 240 vehicles out of their total of almost 300.”[15]

These claims are difficult to substantiate- other Air Forces found in post-battle studies that very little short of a direct bomb or rocket hit could destroy a tank. Some scholars have argued that, of the 32,500 tracked German AFVs destroyed on the Eastern Front, only about 7% were actually destroyed by Soviet aircraft.[16] It is much more likely that the true impact of the Il-2 was felt in attacks on soft-skinned vehicles, which are easily destroyed by machine guns and cannons. The destruction of trucks and tankers would limit supply of material to frontline units as well as reduce their mobility by depriving them of their fuel lifeline. Additionally, the Il-2 would have been a dangerous weapon against German infantry, who knew the aircraft by names such as “Iron Gustav”, “Betonvogel” (concrete bird), or “Butcher.”[17]

A group of Il-2M3s lined up at an airfield.

A group of Il-2M3 pilots prepare for a mission. The shrouds over the engine are intended to keep the engines warm during the extreme temperatures of the Russian winter. Without the shrouds, the engines would seize and refuse to start.

            As the war went on, several changes were made both to the Il-2 itself as well as the tactics used with the aircraft. In early 1943, a variant of the Il-2M3 was produced with the 23mm cannon replaced with two 37mm NS-37; the recoil caused by the cannons however affected the aircraft’s handling. Later, the Il-2M3 was outfitted be able to carry 192 PTAB anti-tank bomblets, small hollow-charge explosives designed to be dropped over large groups of armor. Perhaps most incredible was the installation of a DAG-10 grenade launcher, which was intended to fire grenades suspended by drogue chutes- the intention was that the grenades would float into the path of pursuing fighters.[18] Additionally, after some time, Il-2 units developed tactics that played to their aircraft’s strengths. Shturmoviks, with their takeoff weight of 5 tons, only were not overly quick or maneuverable aircraft.[19] In order to minimize their exposure to ground fire, Il-2s would frequently fly at altitudes as low as 10 meters (32 feet) in groups of 8-12 aircraft. This particular tactic was used against soft-skinned vehicles such as trucks, light vehicles, and infantry. Dive-bombing was a preferred tactic against hardened targets such as well-prepared defenses. Against armor, two tactics were developed. When armor was deployed in a column formation, Shturmoviks would fly in a weaving motion about 100-150m (320-480 feet) above the column, dropping PTAB bomblets as they went. When armor was deployed in an offensive formation, Il-2 pilots executed a maneuver known as the “Circle of Death”- a formation of the attack aircraft would fly towards the flank of the German armor formation. Individual aircraft would break off from the formation to make a shallow diving attack on the tanks- the aircraft would then circle around to make another attack. The aircraft would continue to make circling attacks until ammunition had been exhausted.[20] As earlier stated, these attacks likely did not actually destroy much armor. However, it is likely that they at least caused some disruption and chaos amongst the attacking tanks, even breaking up some attacks entirely. Additionally, ground attack units would at times send pilots forward to the front lines to serve as forward observers, communicating with the aircraft overhead.[21]

A group of Il-2M3s fly low above a devastated city.

A group of Il-2s make a diving attack with their 23mm cannon.

            Whatever the success the VVS experienced with these attacks, they paid dearly for their gains in both aircrew and aircraft. During the Il-2s production run from 1941-1944, of the 36,163 aircraft built, some 26,600 were lost- approximately half of those losses were as a result of combat.[22] One pilot, Yurii Khukhrikov, recalled that the unit he was assigned to, the 1st Squadron of the 566th Ground Attack Aviation Regiment, lost 105 pilots and 50 gunners during the course of the war. Of the 28 individuals with whom he joined his unit in 1944, 15 were killed.[23] While a large number of aircraft were destroyed, many were able to withstand serious damage and return to their base, thanks to their armor. Khukhrikov recalls several close calls:

“We got hit a couple of times. A shell hit a wing on the twenty-eighth sortie. We it back miraculously- the hole was about a meter in size. If a bullet hits, the smell of burned metal can be felt. I smelled it. Turned my head- there it was, a hole. But I was lucky- the shock wave and fragments went to the gunner. His legs were mangled. Communications were disrupted. We landed in Wittenberg. I taxied, turned off the engine, jumped out onto the wing- the gunner, Viktor Shakhaev, Siberian, born in 1926, was just lying there. Guys ran to us, pulled him out. Barely saved his legs. But it turned out that I was also hit. A fragment scratched the back of my head. Where did it manage to penetrate? They wanted to put me in a hospital, but I refused. War ended for me in Wittenberg. I had flown 84 sorties.”[24]

Other pilots echoed similar sentiments. V.S. Frolov’s aircraft was severely damaged by anti-aircraft fire on one mission:

“I was unconscious for a moment, then felt a jet of cold air burst into the cockpit. Opening my eyes, I pulled the control stick and level out from a dive just above the tree tops. I shot a glance back and saw an enormous hole in the wing root and the fuselage… There was no response from the gunner.”[25]

Frolov managed to get his aircraft back to his base, where he crash-landed. The aircraft broke up when it impacted a small building. Though wounded, Frolov survived the crash- his gunner was found dead.

A pilot poses with his damaged Il-2 following a mission. In this instance, flak has damaged the elevator.

This Il-2M3 has made a wheels-up landing following severe flak damage to the vertical stabilizer. Note the crude whitewash pattern applied over the aircraft's camoflauge. Whitewash was generally applied in the field with whatever materials were on hand- it frequently wore off after a few weeks. 

An in-flight picture taken during a Shturmovik attack on German vehicles- the arrow indicates an attacking Il-2 ahead of the camera aircraft.

Another in-flight picture taken during a Shturmovik attack, this time the target of the attack appears to be a German motor pool or headquarters.

            In 1943, the Ilyushin design team made the decision to essentially redesign the Il-2 based on the wartime lessons. The end result became known as the Il-10. Roughly similar in appearance to the Il-2, the Il-10 was constructed entirely of metal, unlike the Il-2, which had some parts made from wood and fabric. Additionally, the rear gunner’s position was altered to include a powered turret armed with a single 20mm cannon. Il-10s gradually began to replace Il-2s from 1944 onwards. By the time production of the Il-10 had ceased in 1954, over 6,000 had been produced.[26] Following the end of the Second World War, the Il-10 served with numerous Eastern Bloc countries. During the Korean War, a number served with the short-lived Korean People’s Air Force, which was quickly destroyed by the US Air Force, whose jets and piston-engine fighters overwhelmed the outnumbered and outmoded North Koreans. Eventually, the aircraft was finally phased out as a trainer.

A North Korean Air Force Il-10 sits in the ruins of a destroyed hangar at Kimpo airfield.

            The Il-2 Shturmovik remains one of the definitive combat aircraft of the Second World War. Certainly the most prolific aircraft built during the war, the Shturmovik became iconic for its role as a tactical support aircraft, in the same vein as the Republic P-47, the Junkers Ju 87 Stuka, and the Hawker Typhoon. While it is entirely probable that many of its pilot’s claims against German armor was highly inflated at times, the aircraft’s ability to provide close air support, break up attacks, and degrade the Germans’ ability to supply their front lines. Curiously, despite the amount of resources that the VVS invested in both developing and employing the Il-2 and the Il-10, following the retirement of the Il-2 and Il-10 from frontline service in the mid-1950s, the VVS did not develop another purpose-built attack aircraft. Instead, the VVS turned to fighter bombers to take over the role. It would not be until the mid-1970s that another attack aircraft was developed. This time it was the Sukhoi firm who successfully developed the new aircraft- the Su-25 (NATO reporting name “Frogfoot”), an aircraft rivaled in capability and armament only by the USAF’s Fairchild A-10 “Thunderbolt II”. Today, the legacy of the Il-2 is preserved through numerous static examples in museums, and one remaining in flying condition in the United States.

Sources

1.    Matveyev, Vadim. "The Ilyushin Il-2: Unflinching Air Support in the Thick of Battle." Russia Beyond The Headline., 06 Oct. 2014. Web. 13 June 2016

2.    Rastrenin, O. V., and A. Yurgenson. II-2 Shturmovik Guard Units of World War 2. Oxford: Osprey, 2008. Print

3.    Rickard, J. "Polikarpov R-5." Historyofwar.org., 21 Apr. 2011. Web. 7 June 2016.

4.    ILYUSHIN II-2M3 SHTURMOVIK." Flying Heritage Collection., 2016. Web. 07 June 2016

5.    Wilkinson, Stephan. "Shturmovik Rebuilt Under Radar | HistoryNet."HistoryNet. World History Group, 19 Jan. 2012. Web. 13 June 2016.

6.    Goebel, Greg. "The Il-2 Shturmovik." The Il-2 Shturmovik., 01 Sept. 2014. Web. 13 June 2016

7.    Khukhrikov, Yurii. "Yurii Khukhrikov." - Я Помню. Герои Великой Отечественной войны. Участники ВОВ. Книга памяти. Federal Agency for Press and Mass Communication, 27 Sept. 2010. Web. 13 June 2016

8.    Ashkey, Nigel. "COMBAT AIRCRAFT VERSUS ARMOUR IN WWII."Operation Barbarossa. DesignsenseWeb, 2014. Web. 07 June 2016.

9.    "Sukhoi Su-6." Sukhoi. Sukhoi Company, 2016. Web. 14 June 2016.

10.  Wetterhan, Ralph. "Kursk." Air & Space Magazine. Smithsonian Institution, May 2015. Web. 20 June 2016.

[1] Matveyev, Vadim. "The Ilyushin Il-2: Unflinching Air Support in the Thick of Battle." Russia Beyond The Headline., 06 Oct. 2014. Web. 13 June 2016

[2] Goebel, Greg. "The Il-2 Shturmovik." The Il-2 Shturmovik., 01 Sept. 2014. Web. 13 June 2016

[3] Goebel, Greg. "The Il-2 Shturmovik." The Il-2 Shturmovik., 01 Sept. 2014. Web. 13 June 2016

[4] Goebel, Greg. "The Il-2 Shturmovik." The Il-2 Shturmovik., 01 Sept. 2014. Web. 13 June 2016

[5] "Sukhoi Su-6." Sukhoi. Sukhoi Company, 2016. Web. 14 June 2016.

[6] Rastrenin, O. V., and A. Yurgenson. II-2 Shturmovik Guard Units of World War 2. Oxford: Osprey, 2008. Print

[7] Rastrenin, O. V., and A. Yurgenson. II-2 Shturmovik Guard Units of World War 2. Oxford: Osprey, 2008. Print

[8] Rastrenin, O. V., and A. Yurgenson. II-2 Shturmovik Guard Units of World War 2. Oxford: Osprey, 2008. Print

[9] Matveyev, Vadim. "The Ilyushin Il-2: Unflinching Air Support in the Thick of Battle." Russia Beyond The Headline., 06 Oct. 2014. Web. 13 June 2016

[10] Goebel, Greg. "The Il-2 Shturmovik." The Il-2 Shturmovik., 01 Sept. 2014. Web. 13 June 2016

[11] Goebel, Greg. "The Il-2 Shturmovik." The Il-2 Shturmovik., 01 Sept. 2014. Web. 13 June 2016

[12] Rastrenin, O. V., and A. Yurgenson. II-2 Shturmovik Guard Units of World War 2. Oxford: Osprey, 2008. Print

[13] Goebel, Greg. "The Il-2 Shturmovik." The Il-2 Shturmovik., 01 Sept. 2014. Web. 13 June 2016

[14] Goebel, Greg. "The Il-2 Shturmovik." The Il-2 Shturmovik., 01 Sept. 2014. Web. 13 June 2016

[15] Goebel, Greg. "The Il-2 Shturmovik." The Il-2 Shturmovik., 01 Sept. 2014. Web. 13 June 2016

[16] Ashkey, Nigel. "COMBAT AIRCRAFT VERSUS ARMOUR IN WWII."Operation Barbarossa. DesignsenseWeb, 2014. Web. 07 June 2016

[17] Matveyev, Vadim. "The Ilyushin Il-2: Unflinching Air Support in the Thick of Battle." Russia Beyond The Headline., 06 Oct. 2014. Web. 13 June 2016

[18] Ashkey, Nigel. "COMBAT AIRCRAFT VERSUS ARMOUR IN WWII."Operation Barbarossa. DesignsenseWeb, 2014. Web. 07 June 2016

[19] Matveyev, Vadim. "The Ilyushin Il-2: Unflinching Air Support in the Thick of Battle." Russia Beyond The Headline., 06 Oct. 2014. Web. 13 June 2016

[20] Goebel, Greg. "The Il-2 Shturmovik." The Il-2 Shturmovik., 01 Sept. 2014. Web. 13 June 2016

[21] Khukhrikov, Yurii. "Yurii Khukhrikov." - Я Помню. Герои Великой Отечественной войны. Участники ВОВ. Книга памяти. Federal Agency for Press and Mass Communication, 27 Sept. 2010. Web. 13 June 2016

[22] Matveyev, Vadim. "The Ilyushin Il-2: Unflinching Air Support in the Thick of Battle." Russia Beyond The Headline., 06 Oct. 2014. Web. 13 June 2016

[23] Khukhrikov, Yurii. "Yurii Khukhrikov." - Я Помню. Герои Великой Отечественной войны. Участники ВОВ. Книга памяти. Federal Agency for Press and Mass Communication, 27 Sept. 2010. Web. 13 June 2016

[24] Khukhrikov, Yurii. "Yurii Khukhrikov." - Я Помню. Герои Великой Отечественной войны. Участники ВОВ. Книга памяти. Federal Agency for Press and Mass Communication, 27 Sept. 2010. Web. 13 June 2016

[25] Wetterhan, Ralph. "Kursk." Air & Space Magazine. Smithsonian Institution, May 2015. Web. 20 June 2016.

[26] Goebel, Greg. "The Il-2 Shturmovik." The Il-2 Shturmovik., 01 Sept. 2014. Web. 13 June 2016

Battlefield Visit: Osan

In the summer of 1950, the United States entered the Korean conflict undermanned and unprepared. Just north of the town of Osan, a cobbled-together force encountered the invading North Korean forces for the first time. Today, that battlefield has changed significantly from the farmland of the 1950s.

By Seth Marshall

            On June 25, 1950, the North Korean People’s Army (KPA) crossed the 38th Parallel into South Korea. Some 135,000 KPA troops supported by hundreds of ex-Soviet T-34/85 tanks quickly overwhelmed the South Korean army, which was not trained or equipped to counter so many armored vehicles.[1] After North Koreans ignored the call from the UN to pull back across the 38th Parallel, the United States began to organize a military response in order to push the communist forces back to the north.

Since the last American occupying forces had left South Korea some time before, the first American units that were sent to Korea were taken from occupying forces in Japan. The first group of occupation forces to be sent over were taken from the 24th Infantry Division. The coalition was commanded by LTC Charles B. Smith, who was previously the commander of 1st Battalion, 21st Infantry Regiment, 24th Infantry Division. Task Force Smith, as the force became known, was composed of B & C companies, two understrength infantry companies from 1st Battalion. Additionally, half of HHC (the Battalion Headquarters Company), a communications section, a recoilless rifle section, and two mortar platoons accompanied the infantry forces.[2] Task Force Smith’s heavy weaponry included two 75mm recoilless rifles taken from the Heavy Weapons Company of 2nd Battalion[3], two 4.2” mortars, six 2.36” bazookas, and four 60mm mortars. In total Task Force Smith was composed of 406 enlisted men and officers, only 1/6 of whom had previously seen combat.[4]

On July 1st, TF Smith departed Japan with orders from the commanding officer of the 24th Infantry Division, Major General William Dean to block the road Pusan as far north as possible. After landing at Pusan, the task force traveled north until reaching Taejon. At Taejon, the American units disembarked. LTC Dean moved ahead with other staff personnel to scout terrain that would be most suitable to defending against the North Koreans. Three miles north of Osan, he found a series of hills through which ran the only road capable of supporting tanks. Smith returned to the task force and continued to move north. Meanwhile, as TF Smith continued to move north, it was mistakenly attacked by six Royal Australian Air Force P-51s.[5] On July 4th, TF Smith was joined at Pyeongtaek by A Battery of the 52nd Field Artillery Battalion. Composed of 6 x 105mm howitzers, A Battery was as unprepared for combating the North Koreans as were the infantry- the artillerymen had only 13 HEAT (High Explosive Anti Tank) rounds to use against the T-34s. After the addition of the artillery battery, TF Smith now numbered 540 enlisted men and officers.

Elements of TF Smith arrive in Taejon on July 2nd. Source: www.nj.gov

During the night of July 4th, TF Smith moved north towards the chosen defensive positions north of Osan. During the night, one of the trucks towing a howitzer became lost and separated from the rest of the task force- it did not join back up in time for the battle. After arriving at the chosen position at 0300 on July 5th, Smith began having his forces prepare their positions.[6] Most of B & C Companies were positioned on the larger hill to the east of the road, while one platoon was emplaced on the hill on the opposite hill. Bazooka teams and recoilless rifles were placed within range of the road to fire on advancing communist armor. Smith placed his mortars on the opposite slope, with light mortars closer towards the crest of the ridgeline and heavier mortars further down the slope. Meanwhile, the commander of the artillery battery placed his four of his remaining howitzers 2,000 yards to the south of the ridge for indirect fire, while the fifth gun was placed 1,000 yards to the south and sighted on the saddle between the two hills where the road ran. All of the HEAT rounds were sent with this gun, as it was tasked with direct fire on tanks.[7] The task force’s trucks were concealed further to the south to preserve them should retreat become necessary.

TF Smith's positions and the North Korean advance. Source: www.koreanwar.net

As dawn rose on the 5th, rain that had begun earlier continued to fall, defeating any hope of friendly air support. Smith ordered registration fires to be carried out to prepare his artillery and mortars for indirect support. Finally, at 0700, movement was detected on the opposite end of the valley. Not long after, eight T-34/85s of the 107th Tank Regiment of the 105th Armor Division began to approach the American positions from the north. At 0816, the first US shots of the war were fired when the tanks had reached 2000 yards distance from the American positions. The artillery, using High Explosive (HE) rounds, had no effect on the tanks. At 700 yards distance, the 75mm recoilless rifles opened fire, scoring several direct hits, but not stopping the tanks in the slightest. The bazookas opened fire soon after, again having no appreciable effect on the T-34s. It wasn’t until the direct fire howitzer opened fire on the first group of tanks with HEAT rounds that two tanks were knocked out. However, the single gun was unable to stop the tide of armor- only one other tank was knocked out. By 1015, thirty-three tanks, equivalent to over a battalion of armor, had passed through the hills that the Americans were defending, killing or wounding twenty US personnel. At 1100, three more tanks appeared supported by infantry from the 16th and 18th Infantry Regiments, 4th Infantry Division. It took an hour for the infantry to make its approach. US forces opened fire at a range of 1000 yards, though they did so without the benefit of the artillery, since communication lines with the artillery battery had been lost. The North Koreans moved to 300 yards from the American positions before opening fire. Despite the American fire, the North Koreans pressed their attack and began to roll up the US flank and inflict more casualties on the defenders.

A Bazooka team in action against North Korean armor. The 2.36" bazooka, ineffective during World War II against German armor, was found to be equally useless against the Soviet-built T-34/85, with its sloped armor.

At 1630, Smith decided that his position was becoming untenable. He had wanted his troops to retrograde in a leapfrogging motion, with one platoon covering the retreat of another with covering fire. Unfortunately, the poorly-trained troops began to panic and retreat in disorder. It was at this point that TF Smith had most of its casualties inflicted. His force in disarray, Smith linked up with the artillery battery, whose gunners then spiked their weapons before retreating with the rest of the task force. Only 185 men made it back to where the trucks had been concealed. Captain Richard Dashmer later brought another 65 men in. Stragglers continued to make their way back to friendly positions for days afterwards. In the end, the battle, which had been a disastrous encounter for the overly-confident and ill-prepared Americans, cost US forces over 150 killed, wounded or missing. The North Koreans suffered an estimated 42 killed, 84 wounded, and three or four tanks destroyed. [8]

A pair of T-34/85s knocked out after the Battle of Osan. Arguably the greatest tank design of World War II, the T-34/85 was simple, had sloping armor providing adequate protection, and a 85mm main gun effective against other tanks. Source: Life Magazine.

The Battle of Osan was indicative of the state of US forces at the time. Gutted following the end of the Second World War, the US military had been reduced to a shell of its former self, both in terms of the equipment available and in terms of the quality of personnel that composed its ranks. Consequently, the first month of combat in Korea did not go well for UN forces. Pushed down the length of the peninsula, US forces were unable to halt the advance of the North Koreans until falling back to the Nakdong River.

TF Smith's position as it appeared at the time of the Korean War. www.koreanwar.net

The Osan-Suwon road, which runs through the middle of the position that TF Smith occupied on July 5, 1950, as it appears today. The terrain has drastically changed from vast farmlands to a built-up urban area. Source: author.

The original monument to TF Smith built in 1959 by the 24th Infantry Division. This monument is situated on the crest of the western-most hill, where one rifle platoon was emplaced during the battle. Source: author.

The current monument to the Battle of Osan, unveiled in 1982 by the South Korean government. The monument is on the opposite side of the road of the original monument, at the base of the hill where most of TF Smith was dug in. Source: author.

The Battle of Osan Memorial Hall, a $33M project which opened in 2013 and is located adjacent to the newer monument. Source: author.

Today, the site of the battle has changed considerably. I visited the site in February of this year. At the time of the battle, the hills where the Americans took up defensive positions were surrounded by rural farmland. At that time, Osan was a relatively small town. Today, Osan and the surrounding area have become considerably built up. Now a city of over 200,000, Osan’s downtown area is located to the south of the battlefield. To the north, numerous high-rise apartment buildings have occupied the valley. The road through Osan remains in roughly the same position that it was six decades ago, though it has been extensively modernized since then. Today, two memorials stand at the site of the battle. The first, positioned on the west side of the ride on the smaller hill was erected by the 24th Infantry Division in 1959. The second, positioned directly across the road at the base of the larger hill, was unveiled in 1982. Additionally, in 2013, the city of Osan opened a $33M memorial hall next to the monument, featuring videos, displays and pictures from the battle.[9] The battlefield has changed so much that at times it is difficult to believe that there was a time when the valley was still farmlands and tanks rolled through the saddle between the hills. The monument stands as a reminder of that time, encouraging passer-bys to remember those trying first months of the Korean War.

Sources

1.      Tucker, Spencer. "Task Force Smith." Task Force Smith. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Apr. 2016

2.      USA. United States Army. Combat Developments Command. Dynamics of Fire and Maneuver. By -. ._. Vol. III. N.p.: n.p., 1969. Print.

3.      "BATTLE AT OSAN-TASK FORCE SMITH." The Korean War. Thekoreanwar.net, n.d. Web. 08 Apr. 2016.

[1] http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/28/world/asia/korean-war-fast-facts/

[2] http://www.nj.gov/military/korea/factsheets/tfsmith.html

[3] http://www.thekoreanwar.net/battle-at-osan-task-force-smith-revisited.php

[4] http://www.nj.gov/military/korea/factsheets/tfsmith.html

[5] http://www.thekoreanwar.net/battle-at-osan-task-force-smith-revisited.php

[6] http://www.nj.gov/military/korea/factsheets/tfsmith.html

[7] http://www.koreanwar-educator.org/topics/reports/after_action/battle_of_osan_5_jul_1950_extract_1969.pdf

[8] http://www.nj.gov/military/korea/factsheets/tfsmith.html

[9] http://www.army.mil/article/101672/Osan_opens_memorial_hall_to_honor_Task_Force_Smith/

Tools of War: The Fubuki-class Destroyer

Fubuki, the lead ship of her class. 

Tools of War: The Fubuki-class Destroyer

 In 1928, the Imperial Japanese Navy introduced the Special Type destroyer. With much heavier armament than contemporary destroyers, the Fubuki-class became the new standard for destroyers in navies across the globe.

by Seth Marshall

                In 1922, the Washington Naval Treaty was signed by the United States, Great Britain, Italy, France, and Japan. The purpose of the treaty was to put an end to a naval arms race which had sprung up in the wake of the First World War. In an effort to stem the cost of massive shipbuilding programs, the Treaty placed limits on the amount of tonnage and size of capital ships. Battleship construction was limited to a displacement of 35,000 tons and a gun caliber no larger than 16”. Cruisers were limited in displacement to no more than 10,000 tons with no larger than 8” guns. Additionally, the size and tonnage of carriers was limited. While it signed the treaty, Japan was not happy with the results of the treaty, and felt that it restricted their ability to operate in the Pacific.[1]

                The end of result of this Treaty for Japan was that it came to the conclusion that since it was restricted in the construction of major capital ships, it would have to make up for this gap in other areas. Japan’s solution was the Special Type destroyer, also known as the Fubuki-class. When the first destroyer was commissioned in 1928, it completely changed the way that navies viewed destroyers. The Fubukis were much more powerful than their contemporaries. Armament consisted of six 5” guns in three dual mounts, three triple torpedo launchers, and two 7.7mm machine guns for anti-aircraft protection. The torpedoes made the Fubukis particularly deadly, as the launchers utilized the Type 93 torpedo, the finest torpedo designed by the Japanese and were more than deadly enough to destroy Allied capital ships. The new destroyer’s guns were also a substantial improvement over previous designs. The 5” guns were larger than older designs, and the dual mounts meant that gun crews would not have to operate exposed to the elements, though with .1 inches of armor, the mounts offered little to no protection. When launched, the Fubuki was 50% more powerful in armament than the preceding Mutsuki-class. Propulsion for the was provided by four boilers driving two geared turbines that made 50,000 shaft horsepower, which translated to 35 knots. Additionally, numerous new design features were incorporated, welding on the hull and lighter alloys used on the structure above the main deck.[2]

A US Navy Office of Naval Intelligence profile of the Fubuki-class.

                To emphasize how the Fubuki measured up against its contemporaries, here is a comparison to the US Navy’s Clemson-class and the Royal Navy’s A-class:

Sources: 1) 1.       Fubuki-class Destroyer." Combinedfleet.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Feb. 2016., 2) Arthur, Andrew, and Bruce T. Swain. ""A" Class Destroyers." Royal Navy Ships of World War 2. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Feb. 2016, 3) 1.       Budge, Kent G. "Clemson Class, U.S. Destroyers." The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia:. N.p., 2007. Web. 22 Feb. 2016.

As can be seen above, the Fubuki had a marked advantage in firepower over contemporary destroyers. At the time that the Fubuki-class came into service, the Clemson-class was already obsolete and was under-armed against the Fubuki. The A-class was also out-gunned, though it was a better design than the Clemson and served as a basis for future Royal Navy destroyers. Additionally, the IJN destroyer had the advantage of having much better torpedoes than any other navy at the time.[3][4][5]

USS Clemson (DD-161), the lead ship of her class.

HMS Achastes, an A-class destroyer. Source: Imperial War Museum

The IJN’s plans called for 24 Fubuki-class destroyers. These were produced in two groups of ten, the Special Type I and the Special Type II which were distinguished by several technical differences. Type A turret, while the Type II had the Type B turret.  The most noticeable difference was that the Type I had the  The last four ships that were to be produced featured so many changes from the original design that they were redesignated as the Akatsuki-class. The names of the twenty destroyers were: Fubuki, Hatsuyuki, Miyuki, Murakamo, Shinonome, Usugumo, Isonami, Uranami, Ayanami, Shikinami, Asagiri, Sagiri, Oboro, Akebono, Sazanami, and Ushio.

The Yugiri, demonstrating the heavy armament and speed of the Fubuki-class. Source: Kure Maritime Museum.

Despite the advantages of the Fubuki-class, it was not without problems. The design was overweight from the outset, which caused serious stability issues. There were also concerns with the structural integrity of the design. On September 26, 1935, the IJN fleet ran into a typhoon at sea. Two Special Type destroyers lost their bows, three more suffered severe structural damage, and six others had hull damage. As a result, from November 1935 to 1938 all of the Fubuki-class were sent back to the shipyards for hull strengthening and weight reduction. A ballast keel and an additional 40 tons of ballast were added. To lighten the topside of the ship, whose weight was the partial source of instability, a number of measures were taken: the bridge was reduced in size, smoke stacks were shortened, the number of torpedo reloads reduced, and magazine storage for the main guns was reduced. The result of these efforts was that the displacement was increased to 2,090 tons and top speed reduced to 34 knots, but the stability concerns had successfully been addressed. [6]

During the Pacific War, the Fubukis saw extensive service. For example, the Shikinami, which was assigned to Destroyer Division 19, was responsible for finishing off the cruiser USS Houston at the Battle of Sunda Strait during early 1942, participated in the Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal from November 12-15, 1942, survived the Battle of the Bismarck Sea in 1943, and was finally sunk by the submarine USS Growler on September 12, 1944.[7] Another Fubuki-class, the Amagiri, was the ship responsible for sinking John F. Kennedy’s PT-109 on August 2, 1943.[8] It was later sunk by a mine in the Makassar Strait on April 23, 1944. As the war progressed, surviving Fubukis were modified to increase their survivability. Anti-aircraft armament was increased first to 2 x 13mm twin mounts, then to 2 x 25mm triple mounts, then to even more 25mm triple mounts, with some destroyers apparently being armed with as many as fifteen triple 25mm mounts. Seven of the destroyers were also eventually fitted with No. 22 radars, but the first was not installed on the Yugiri until November 1943, long after the tide of the war had shifted in favor of the Allies.[9] Eighteen of the class were sunk- six to Allied submarines, seven to aerial attack, three to Allied surface ships, and two to mines. Only one of the destroyers, the Ushio, survived the war (another destroyer, the Miyuki, was sunk in a collision in 1934).

The Amagiri, the destroyer responsible for sinking future-President John f. Kennedy's PT Boat on August 2, 1943. Amagiri was herself sunk the following year when she struck a mine.

The Shikinami, a Fubuki-class destroyer which saw extensive action early in the Pacific War only to be sunk by a submarine, the USS Growler, in 1944.  

The Fubuki-class was a destroyer design that became the blueprint for future designs in the IJN, and also influenced plans in other navies. Fast and heavily armed, the Fubukis performed well in their intended role of making massed torpedo attacks against enemy surface ships. However, when faced with increasing numbers of aircraft and submarines, the Fubukis were not as effective and subsequently nearly all of them were lost. Nonetheless, the Fubuki-class destroyer remains an important milestone in the history of the IJN.

Sources

1.       "Fubuki-class Destroyer." Combinedfleet.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Feb. 2016.

2.       Arthur, Andrew, and Bruce T. Swain. ""A" Class Destroyers." Royal Navy Ships of World War 2. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Feb. 2016.

3.       Budge, Kent G. "Naval Disarmament Treaties." The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia. N.p., 2006. Web. 21 Feb. 2016.

4.       Budge, Kent G. "Clemson Class, U.S. Destroyers." The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia:. N.p., 2007. Web. 22 Feb. 2016.

5.       Stille, Mark. The Imperial Japanese Navy in the Pacific War. N.p.: Osprey, 2014. Print.

[1] Budge, Kent G. "Naval Disarmament Treaties." The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia. N.p., 2006. Web. 21 Feb. 2016.

[2] P.260-262-Stille, Mark. The Imperial Japanese Navy in the Pacific War. N.p.: Osprey, 2014. Print.

[3] "Fubuki-class Destroyer." Combinedfleet.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Feb. 2016.

[4] Arthur, Andrew, and Bruce T. Swain. ""A" Class Destroyers." Royal Navy Ships of World War 2. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Feb. 2016.

[5] Budge, Kent G. "Clemson Class, U.S. Destroyers." The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia:. N.p., 2007. Web. 22 Feb. 2016.

[6] P.261- Stille, Mark. The Imperial Japanese Navy in the Pacific War. N.p.: Osprey, 2014. Print.

[7] P. 269- Stille, Mark. The Imperial Japanese Navy in the Pacific War. N.p.: Osprey, 2014. Print.

[8] P.265- Stille, Mark. The Imperial Japanese Navy in the Pacific War. N.p.: Osprey, 2014. Print.

[9] P. 262- Stille, Mark. The Imperial Japanese Navy in the Pacific War. N.p.: Osprey, 2014. Print.