65th Anniversary

saburo sakai argued:

You called this a very, very smart strategic move.  This is not an accurate statement because the raid was never conceived of in strategic terms.  It was simply intended as a limited attack in retaliation for Pearl Harbor.

I believe it was a smart strategic move, regardless of what they might tell you. There was at least three very important strategic gains. These are obvious and consequently you can not persuade me into believing that the US commanders did not consider these gains at all. Please don’t tell me US commanders are that careless)  :|

1. Getting the Imperial Army out and away to China
2. Getting the Imperial Fleet back from the Bengal and up to Japan (instead of down towards Australia)
3. Getting the Fleet Air Force, and the Army Airforce back home to Tokyo (dezrtfish agreed with this one)

You suggest that the US’s intention with the raid was to make the Japanese focus on the Chinese and leave the US alone.  Not true.  As stated many times, the US raid was a morale booster, nothing more.  It was certainly not designed to push the Japanese in the direction of China.

First: There is one good reason why I don’t believe in the moral boosting story at all: Would you really think that US would risk 33% of there pacific carrier force, just for that? How would this boost to morale, be affected by the very possible loss of a rare indispensible carrier for a few useless bombs dropped on Yukosuka ….Nah…

Second: If the strategic gains was in fact the intention, logically they would of course never unveil it. They would state again and again that it was simply a booster.

You state that the USS Hornet beat a cowardly retreat and that the planes should have landed back on the carrier.  For one, it was hardly a retreat when it was part of the plan that the Hornet would return to Pearl Harbor after launching the planes. The reason for this was that the flight deck was not long enough for the planes to land on - so what you suggest was physically impossible, therefore historically misleading and inaccurate.

physically impossible? Nonsens!! Sorry my language, it’s not pointed at you, but i believe, that i’s a bad excuse. If they could make bellylanding in China they could just as well have made bellylanding close to CV-8. Therefore the length of the flightdeck was definitely NOT the reason for USS Hornet retreating. But yes of course - that’s what they would tell you, indeed.  :-D

You say that the US was “cheating on its Ally”.  This is false and is demonstrated by the reactions of the Chinese when the encountered the US airmen after they had landed their planes in China.  The Chinese did not feel cheated.  They assisted the airmen to escape the Japanese and most only returned to the US with Chinese help.

Well, The Chinese pretty much had to accept it since it was a done deal. All this just shows that the Chinese was sincerely faithful to their US allies. The reference to their reactions demonstrates nothing but that.

You state that the Chinese turned on the US after the war, suggesting that the Doolittle Raid was the reason for this.  Hogwash!!

Nahh, that’s not really what I said is it? I certainly wouldn’t give the Doolittle Raid that much credit.  :-D
Â

The Nationalist forces of Chiang Kai Shek were defeated by the communists in the Chinese Civil War.  They retreated to Formosa (now Taiwan) and remain a staunch ally of the US to this day.  The fact that the communists did not support or side with the US has everything to do with the fact that they were communists and nothing to do with the US war record in China.

….everything to do with the fact that they were communists? The communists of China was allied to USA just as the nationalist. So i don’t get your point. Well alright, perhaps you want to say that the fact that they were communists was the thin pretext for the Americans to turn against an allied? I don’t know.

And then dezrtfish with a reply:

The assertion that we didn’t tell the Chinese was treachery is ludicrous, there were very few people who new the objective of the raid prior to the crossing of the no return line.  This included most of the Pilots and sailors on the mission.

Yes maybe, but if your assertions are true, these premises should surely apply for actions in the European theater as well. How come The Americans did not conduct such secret missions over british territory, if secrecy was a necessity, as you postulate dezrtfish? The US did never behave like this to the British. So why the Chinese? This does not make much sense, so I guess I can still conclude that the reasons for this secrecy seems to be the ones that I suggested  8-)

I believe the Doolittle raid was a very smart strategic move, accomplished with great skill, no doubt. Initially very sad for the Chinese, but hey, that’s life (or war). But a “booster to morale” being the only reason for this mission, ….Doubt it! :|

Of your strategic goals I see 2 and 3 being viable, but I believe that Number 1 was an unforeseeable circumstance.  I also think blaming Japanese barbarism on a mission like this is unreasonable.  I think that most Americans were shocked by the inhumanity that the Japanese considered culturally acceptable.

I also don’t believe that they were necessarily “risking” 33% of the Carrier force.  If that was the case they could have done the job with naval bombers.  I’m sure your aware of the contingency plan to dump the bombers overboard if the carrier was detected.

I don’t think you are taking into account the logistics involved in flying the bombers back to the carrier.  The entire task force was on radio silence.  Not to mention the original plan was to land the B24s in china and not crash them.

Secrecy from the British wasn’t necessary in Britain, because the British weren’t living in an occupied territory.  The Japanese have heavily infiltrated most of china.  Mission secrecy was extremely important.  With warning the Japanese could have put up a token fighter screen and actually accomplished the kills that the later claimed.

To gain some better insight try Col. Doolittle’s after action report, it’s a bit lengthy, but it’s strait from the horse’s mouth so to speak.
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/rep/Doolittle/Report.html

the japanese had been pounding the chinese since what 33’?  most of their army in the beginning of the war was in china anyways.  we didnt make more japs go to china.  just made the troops their do more action to get rid of bomber bases.  which they could never do.

why would you want the pilots to risk their lives in a very dangerous landing on a carrier.  it might not be impossible, but near impossible. like a 1% chance of actually belly crashing onto the deck and keeping it on there.  its way easier to go to china.  it was a great move to get the navy and air force back to japan.  it was demoralizing for them, and a boost for us.

i’m gonna have to say guys, once again, some people just try to blame america for everything.  its infused in their brain, its how their synapses work.  you know what i call these people, the L word, which i wont take out of the political forum.  but seriously, its fun to watch their brains in action.  so what else is our fault in WWII.

Dezrtfish argued:

Of your strategic goals I see 2 and 3 being viable, but I believe that Number 1 was an unforeseeable circumstance.

I believe all these strategic goals, must have been considered very important. You know all this: At the time of the planning of the Doolittle Raid, the war situation was already immensely grave. The Japanese had made landings and assaults practically everywhere in South East Asia, and the ABDA forces in Dutch East India was severely threatened. Anything that could possibly divert the attention of the Japanese commanders was much needed. The Doolittle raid was a perfect such diversion. At the time of the raid, the Japanese was in firm control of mostly all South East Asia, the Imperial Fleet had already completely destroyed the entire combined fleet of ABDA, and had since moved to the bengal and destroyed a good part of the british fleet in the indian ocean. On April 12 The Imperial Fleet, having lost not a single surface warship, was ready to be moved south towards Australia.

I also think blaming Japanese barbarism on a mission like this is unreasonable.

Yes definitely, and that was of course not my point. My hypothesis addressed the increased Japanese pressure on the chinese front (to destroy airfields useful for long range bombing missions).

I think that most Americans were shocked by the inhumanity that the Japanese considered culturally acceptable.

That is words of wisdom from a fine soldier!  :-)

I also don’t believe that they were necessarily “risking” 33% of the Carrier force.  If that was the case they could have done the job with naval bombers.  I’m sure your aware of the contingency plan to dump the bombers overboard if the carrier was detected.

Yes thanx, I know of the decision to overthrow the planes, but I don’t see how this approach in any way eliminates the risk of losing the carrier. I believe Japanese submarines represented a huge threat to the entire mission. A submarine could very well have detected the action force, and there is a considerable risk that the taskforce could have been completely unaware of such detection.

I don’t think you are taking into account the logistics involved in flying the bombers back to the carrier.  The entire task force was on radio silence.  Not to mention the original plan was to land the B24s in china and not crash them.

Well, I believe they could, with not too big a risk, had broken radio silence at the expected time of return of the bombers. At that time USS Hornet would be protected by CAP - the fighter planes that was originally stored below the flightdeck.

But dezrtfish, what really puzzles me is the question: Why exactly China? Why not Russia? (I know of “Guests at the Kremlin” but that plane headed to Russia on emergency only because of lack of fuel). It is a fact that the distance from Japan to Russia is HALF AS LONG as the distance to national China. This means that USS Hornet could have released the planes much earlier if Russia had been the destination. Also the choice of China as destination, severely endangered the life of many crew members (several was killed by the Japanese). Thus China is in no way the logical choice, considering the threat to the carrier and the safety of the crew. So why exactly China? I have never found any acceptable answer to this question.

To gain some better insight try Col. Doolittle’s after action report, it’s a bit lengthy, but it’s strait from the horse’s mouth so to speak.
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/rep/Doolittle/Report.html

Ctrl + c !!!
Yes ! I found and studied this Doolittle action report some years ago on the Internet, but for some reason I failed to save it and had even forgot all about it. Thanx Dezrtfish, you are god damn serious!

balungaloaf also had some comments:

most of their army in the beginning of the war was in china anyways.  we didnt make more japs go to china.  just made the troops their do more action to get rid of bomber bases.  which they could never do.

Let’s take a serious look at this detail. US high command was very much aware of the rivalry between the Japanese fleet and army, and of the Japanese armys reluctance to spread their forces all around the South East Asia. But the Japanese army were under heavy pressure from the navy and Tojo to do just that. All the army needed to follow their own goals was a good excuse to stay in China. Soon after the Doolittle raid the Japanese Army informed Tojo and the Navy that there was no army forces available for large operations in the south (fx. for an invasion of Australia).

The allies must presumably have been aware of all this, since to this very day UK and US insist that there was never a genuine threat to Australia (any sort of possible invasion). This is however a much controversial claim, highly disputed by many Australians who believe this claim in fact is a thin pretext for Mr. Churchill’s “Germany First Strategy”, and his explicit refusal to support Australia.

why would you want the pilots to risk their lives in a very dangerous landing on a carrier.  it might not be impossible, but near impossible. like a 1% chance of actually belly crashing onto the deck and keeping it on there.

Please read my posts more accurately, I pointed out that  “……If they could make bellylanding in China they could just as well have made bellylanding close to CV-8.” (USS Hornet)

its way easier to go to china.

As I believe to have demonstrated in my reply to dezrtfish: This is really not true. At least Russia would have been a much easier and very much safer destination.

i’m gonna have to say guys, once again, some people just try to blame america for everything.  its infused in their brain, its how their synapses work.  you know what i call these people, the L word, which i wont take out of the political forum.  but seriously, its fun to watch their brains in action.  so what else is our fault in WWII.

Right…here we go…   :-P

@Colonel:

Well, I believe they could, with not too big a risk, had broken radio silence at the expected time of return of the bombers. At that time USS Hornet would be protected by CAP - the fighter planes that was originally stored below the flightdeck.

Your talking about launching from a Carrier flying 12 to 14 hours round trip and expecting the carrier to be waiting right where it was planned.  What if the fleet ran into a patrol and had to change position.  There would be 0% chance of the pilots surviving that plan with just one minor snafu.

@Colonel:

But dezrtfish, what really puzzles me is the question: Why exactly China? Why not Russia? (I know of “Guests at the Kremlin” but that plane headed to Russia on emergency only because of lack of fuel). It is a fact that the distance from Japan to Russia is HALF AS LONG as the distance to national China. This means that USS Hornet could have released the planes much earlier if Russia had been the destination. Also the choice of China as destination, severely endangered the life of many crew members (several was killed by the Japanese). Thus China is in no way the logical choice, considering the threat to the carrier and the safety of the crew. So why exactly China? I have never found any acceptable answer to this question.

USSR wasn’t a very cooperative ally at the time.  The US couldn’t spend a lot of time negotiating for safe passage.  In Doolittle AAR he mentions his hope to make a deal and the fact that it did not come to fruition.

:-o
  The Doolittle raid did two very important things; first and foremost it proved to the American people ,(and the world ) that we were not completely destroyed in the Pacific, as rumors wanted people to believe. This aleviated the defeatest attitude that was stifulling production at the time.
Secondly, it did cause the Japanese to change direction in there conquest plans and pulled their resources towards American forces and away from India and Australia, buying them precious time to build up, and deny them those important territories.
As far as the attrocities committed by the troops in China and other conqured territories is concerned, had little to do with our or anybody elses military operations. No,They did it to cower the populations to obay the Japanese edicts and as reprisals for Partisan attacks on their troops. Much the same way as the Nazis’ did in France, the Balkans, the Low Countries and in Russia.
  Crazy Ivan  :roll:

Yes they could have made a belly landing on the hornet, however are you willing to risk 2 of the 3 carriers we had in the pacific to retrieve 16 medium bombers?  16 B-25’s would not even constitute a fighter in axis and allies, while two carriers would certainly correspond with a carrier in the real game.  Which unit would be more important to you in a game of axis and allies assuming you play.  So no, I do not believe it was foolish, the leadership played it safe.  Both carriers used would play vital roles in the years to come.  If lost would Japan have been stopped at Coral Sea or reduced at Midway.

those bombers could have landed?  news to me.  b/c they couldnt of.  how exactly would you slow down such a huge frame to be able to stop on the carrier.  even belly landing wouldnt do it.

they had no hook to latch on, and that wouldnt work anyways b/c the bomber is too heavy.

belly landing is also dangerous, especially on a carrier.

so how again would it be possible to have the planes land on the carriers.

I don’t know, if those heavy bombers could take off on the short runway, I’d think that they could land somehow if fuel permitted it.  They would be lighter coming back with less fuel (or none, perhaps) and no bombs.

It’s not so much that the planes we worth retrieving, but the crews themselves.  The planes were mainly skeletons anyway…
Either way, it’s a moot point if getting near the carrier again was impossible.

BG Mitchel…was he the one that bombed two antiquated battleships off the Carolinas to show the potential of airpower?

yeah,he bombed to german ships confiscated from WW1…one was a battleship one a battle cruiser i think.