![]() |
|
|
#1 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: brunswick ME
Posts: 130
|
i would like to know if they are going to update any rules or are they going to japan the abilty to kamakazi tanks like for instance: if or when thier plane gets their second hit, it should get a roll its AT to attack tanks but give it like 10 dice at 0-1 and it can only do it if the plane is 0-1 hexes away from unit... just like to see something of that nature
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Hauptmann
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 2,260
|
The real deal about Kamikaze planes is a myth. Not many, to say less than 10 were really reported hitting boats... Boats are slightly larger than tank, I think!
__________________
Remember-OWS- Mein kanadischer Kampf: Unabhängigkeit von Quebec +15 on the Trade list (My AAM Trade List ) + ( My WAS TRADE LIST) The Killing bee! Italina L3/35 - Double shoot Natural Born Killer 2xBofor Vickers Fuel Dump 2xSMLE Veteran SMLE Rifleman The Carro Mania! Italian Carro (x3) in 2 turn Soviet KV-1 in cover __________________________________________________ ______________ AAM & WAS Tournament Organizer, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, FLGS: Carta Magica* No more axis vs axis and allies vs allies draft Single unit and Combat Zone Promo in prize*FLGS Store with the highest participation in North America for AAM AAM & WAS Forum Français (Canada) |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,242
|
In one sense all planes are already kamikaze. Most of the time they only get one attack before they are killed anyway.
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,829
|
there were many such attacks. not 10. but they were against ships.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Original Resourceful Hero
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 99
|
To my knowledge, Kamikazes were from naval units.
I never heard of a kamikaze crashing on a tank. |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Heir to Socrates
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kalamazoo, MI, USA
Posts: 610
|
Correct. "Kamikaze", as "divine wind", being the reference to the storm that sank the Mongol invasion fleet in the 13th century, was coined by the Japanese to refer to the aerial attacks (wind) attempting to sink the U.S. fleet in a similar fashion. Now, Banzai charges are a different matter, also aggressive, and apparently suicidal attacks by soldiers, but they somewhat expected to survive those attacks, and if they did die, it was a glorious death, with honor, in defense of the Emporer. The latter was what helped motivate the Kamikaze pilots to do their duty, but the Japanese would never have resorted to such tactics if they were WINNING the war. They weren't crazy - just desperate. Suicidal attacks in desperation were done by all nations; they just didn't get a catchy moniker, nor were they institutionalized, like the Kamikazes.
I'm sure in any War at Sea system, there will be circumstantial rules for Kamikazes, but, in general, they were a waste of a pilot. If the Japanese still had the bulk of their veteran pilots at that stage of the war, they probably wouldn't have resorted to the Kamikaze. But, since the training period that late in the war was much too short for anything but takeoff and simple evasion, much less dogfighting, divebombing and torpedo attack, while also caring for one's own safety and living to fight another day, the Kamikaze was the only real hope the Japanese had for planting a large payload on target.
__________________
"Common Sense" is that of which the wise wish they had more, and everyone else needs laws to enforce. - Me |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|