28

A Reddit user titled this photo "Kamikaze hit on HMS Sussex" and it currently has 5,532 points (96% upvoted).

Here is a cropped version of that photo:

Kamikaze?

Another user cites Wikipedia:

On 26 July 1945 her Task Force was attacked by two attack bombers acting as "Kamikaze" suicide weapons. One made an imprint on the side of the HMS Sussex, from which it could be identified as a Mitsubishi Ki-51 "Sonia".

They also linked to a gif that purports to illustrate how the plane hit.

Does this photo represent the result of a 1945 kamikaze attack on HMS Sussex?

geometrian
  • 391
  • 1
  • 3
  • 6
  • https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/3q1mw9/kamikaze_hit_on_hms_sussex/cwbdhid has an image saying that it matches a plane and a ship. Unfortunately, that's not enough to verify that it's genuine. – Andrew Grimm Oct 26 '15 at 07:05
  • 3
    Rather disappointed the closevoters haven't linked to http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/3219/104 if that's their objection. – Andrew Grimm Oct 26 '15 at 07:20
  • 2
    As far as I can tell from meta, you're allowed to ask if a photo has been edited, or you can ask if it's a genuine photo of a staged scene. An example of the latter would be some sailor painting the outline of a plane onto a hull. I assume you're not worried about that, but suspect someone has photoshopped the image. Apologies if that's not the case. I just wanted to make sure this question doesn't get closed. – Andrew Grimm Oct 26 '15 at 07:37
  • This is on-topic. Also, the image is on imgur with millions of views http://imgur.com/gallery/bV0XufI – George Chalhoub Oct 26 '15 at 08:40
  • @AndrewGrimm: Thanks for trying to save it. I've taken it in another direction - I hope you and imallett don't mind. Even if this photograph is a genuine image of a blotch on the side of a ship, that doesn't resolve the issue. I've moved away from whether the photo is authentic, to the claim made on Wikipedia - that somehow the plane left an imprint!? – Oddthinking Oct 26 '15 at 09:02
  • 1
    Not a reliable source, but maybe this will [lead people to an answer?](https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?id=677869062260231&story_fbid=880228315357637) – Oddthinking Oct 27 '15 at 04:23
  • It's pretty clear from lack of significant damage that it wasn't a _proper_ kamikaze, as in plane purposely filled with explosives. So IMO what is answerable is if that's actual imprint of the plane, because we cannot know pilots intentions (or even if he was still alive when the plane hit the ship). – vartec May 05 '16 at 07:51
  • @vartec It might have well been a proper kamikaze that, for example, missed the ship but hit the water nearby, with only a small fraction of the explosives payload marking the ship. – Sebastian Redl Jan 30 '17 at 09:38
  • my grandfather was on board at the time both he and one of the crew of the HMS Vestal [a minesweeper] verified this as an incident they witnessed they said the plane hit the water and then hit the bow of the Sussex [my granddad served on her from sept42 till she came back to britian in 1946 – Jimmy Walker Oct 07 '18 at 12:02
  • @imallet Aircraft are not sturdy objects, they are mostly just thin sheet metal stretched over a light-weight frame. The only really solid object in an aircraft is the engine. This aircraft hit the Sussex in the belt armour, 4.5 inches / 112.5 mm steel, made to mitigate incoming **artillery**. So, unless the kamikaze ordnance triggered properly, this flimsy propeller-driver tin can stood little chance against the combat ship's armour. And last: [Detonography](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detonography). Objects slamming into metal do leave surprisingly detailed imprints. –  Oct 08 '18 at 12:29
  • As some comments suggest, this *might* have been possible if the plane exploded some distance from the ship, hit the ship without its explosives going off (some explosives are harder to set off than one might assume, and might have required a working electrical circuit and trigger), or maybe the plane wasn't actually a kamikaze and hitting the ship was accidental. The sailors involved might well have no way of knowing for sure. – Grimm The Opiner Aug 09 '19 at 09:50
  • I note that we've now had two people claim their grandfather was onboard the ship as evidence it is real. – Oddthinking Dec 09 '20 at 13:53

2 Answers2

25

According to Pacific Wrecks, a non-profit organization devoted to sharing information about the Pacific Theater of World War II and the Korean War, it does. The image description reads as:

HMS Sussex hull impact by kamikaze Ki-51 Sonia

And, is credited to:

Credit: Royal Navy Date: July 26, 1945. B&W

Pacific Wrecks says it owns the copyright of the image and there is an option where you can acquire it, this is the version posted on their website:

enter image description here

Furthermore, two different images were found on FrignateNS's Flickr account of the event:

enter image description here enter image description here

Where he credits one image as:

A Kamikaze hit that did'nt succed[sic], but I bet it gave them one helluva fright!

Lastly, it is being said that:

On 26 July 1945 her Task Force was attacked by two attack bombers acting as "Kamikaze" suicide weapons. One made an imprint on the side of the HMS Sussex, from which it could be identified as a Mitsubishi Ki-51 "Sonia"

George Chalhoub
  • 30,246
  • 14
  • 129
  • 136
  • 3
    That proves the photo is not photoshopped, but it does little to prove how the plane shaped black mark got on the ship. – John Dvorak May 07 '16 at 18:05
  • 2
    @JohnDvorak That would probably be a good question for https://history.stackexchange.com/ - not so much here because it would probably require the kind of original research and reasoned speculation (e.g. was the plane slowed by clipping the water?) that this site doesn't allow in its strict fact-checking. Related: [Did a Kamikaze ever impact the hull of a ship, as opposed to the deck?](https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/24027/did-a-kamikaze-ever-impact-the-hull-of-a-ship-as-opposed-to-the-deck) – user56reinstatemonica8 Oct 07 '18 at 22:57
  • The Australian War Memorial has [that image](https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C353415) listed as public domain. – Schwern Dec 10 '20 at 19:34
3

That image is in the Australian War Memorial's collection.

c. 1944. The imprint of a Japanese kamikaze aircraft on the side of HMS Sussex. Incredibly, the aircraft hit the side of the HMS Sussex and fell into the ocean without damaging the ship.

(The image is in the public domain, at least in Australia).

HMS Sussex was a County class heavy cruiser of the Royal Navy. Because of treaty limitations, her armor was quite thin for a heavy cruiser, 1 to 4 inches thick in places, particularly the side (the "belt").

While its armor was weak against naval guns, aircraft are made to be as light as possible. If the plane "fell into the ocean" then it either lacked a bomb, or it was a dud. It may not have been a deliberate kamikaze, but an opportunistic attack, or simply pilot error. The biggest concern would be a fire from the fuel.

In his Service Histories of Royal Navy Warships in World War 2, Lt. Cmdr Geoffrey Mason, RN has for HMS Sussex on July 26th, 1945...

Under KAMIKAZE attacks during which two aircraft were destroyed.. Sustained slight structural damage above waterline by the wreckage of a Japanese aircraft. HM Minesweeper VESTAL was sunk and HMS AMEER was damaged.

Schwern
  • 17,034
  • 7
  • 63
  • 66