Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
Was the Doolittle Raid worth it?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Tuesday, 18th April 2006
Today is the 64th anniversary of the Doolittle Raid on Japan. A handful of these brave aviators still live. My question for the historians here is simply, was it worth it?
Kurt -
Message 2
Posted by ImreWaterloo (U3785004) on Wednesday, 19th April 2006
The purpose of the bombing was to avange The Attack on Pearl Harbour in 1941. It was also to show the Japans That america was ready for the war against Japan.
-
Message 3
Posted by Turnwrest (U2188092) on Wednesday, 19th April 2006
In terms of the military results - damage actually done - no.
In terms of the psychological boost to US morale - particularly civilian morale - probably.
In terms of the long term outcome (precipitaing the attempt on Midway) - definitely worth it. -
Message 4
Posted by henrylee100 (U536041) on Wednesday, 19th April 2006
only as a morale booster, basically it was entirely a publicity thing, especially when FDR later said in a press conference that the bombers used a secret base called Shangri La.
-
Message 5
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Wednesday, 19th April 2006
There are times when you have to fight back regardless of the expense in lives and equipment. Up to the Doolittle raid Japan hadnt been attacked at all. The scattering of a handfull of bombs had an effect out of all proportion to their explosive effects. It boosted Allied morale sky high and was a firm kick in the guts to Japan.
-
Message 6
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Wednesday, 19th April 2006
In terms of personnel cost it was certainly cheap enough from the American point of view. But when the Japanese found out that the Chinese had aided many of the flyers, they massacred several thousands of Chinese in retaliation. Of course, you cannot blame the US because the Japanese were bloodthirsty vandals.
In terms of damage inflicted on the targets, it was a pin prick.
In terms of a/c lost, it was expensive, since every single B-25 was a casualty.
Its morale effect in the US and Canada was enormous. I remember hearing a huge cheer go up when it was announced over radio in my school, and teachers were rushing around slapping each other on the back -- and this was in Canada. One can only imagine its effect on America at the time.
Its effect in Japan was electric. The Midway operation was in limbo. Yamamoto wanted it, but the high command was against it as was the army, and Tojo (army) was Japanese boss at the time. The Doolittle raid convinced the high command that America was not only a long way from being disconsolate and about to give up....on the contrary, they were full of fight and actually believed they could win. That attitude had to be beaten down, and right away. Yamamoto's Midway operation was immediately approved and kismet took over. What might have happened had Doolittle's raid never taken place we cannot, of course, know.
What did happen was a colossal defeat for Japan from which she never recovered. -
Message 7
Posted by Dirk Marinus (U1648073) on Wednesday, 19th April 2006
It was purely a psychological show to warn the Japanese people that the US air force had the means to bomb the Japanese in their own country.
-
Message 8
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Wednesday, 19th April 2006
The posts above seem to agree that it's effects were psychological but extremely important. It reminds me of a book I read once that pointed out that except where the object is actual biological extermination of an enemy, all warfare is psychological warfare, the usual object being to convince the enemy that he is defeated and that the terms offered are better than the alternative of continued resistance.
-
Message 9
Posted by henrylee100 (U536041) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
What might have happened had Doolittle's raid never taken place we cannot, of course, know.
What did happen was a colossal defeat for Japan from which she never recovered.
Ìý
I'd guess Japan would have lost anyway, readigng your post one might construe that Japanese actually lost because of the Doolitle raid while in actuality there was plenty of other reasons why their chances of ever winning were very slim from the very start. -
Message 10
Posted by Mr Pedant (U2464726) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
By the sound of it, it provoked the Japanese to launch the Battle of Midway, which while a tremendous victory in the event, was won by the US against the odds when they could easily have sustained a very major defeat.
So the raid could have backfired badly, which takes us to the 'what if' the Japanese had won at Midway. -
Message 11
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
What might have happened had Doolittle's raid never taken place we cannot, of course, know.
What did happen was a colossal defeat for Japan from which she never recovered.
Ìý
I'd guess Japan would have lost anyway, readigng your post one might construe that Japanese actually lost because of the Doolitle raid while in actuality there was plenty of other reasons why their chances of ever winning were very slim from the very start.Ìý
I think you've taken my post out of context. The colossal defeat to which I was referring was the Midway defeat. Taking my post as a whole, I think that's pretty clear.
You'd make a good tabloid reporter. -
Message 12
Posted by Turnwrest (U2188092) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
"Isn't that (Japanese victory at Midway) better in a seperate thread?
-
Message 13
Posted by Denholm603 (U3817438) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
only as a morale booster, basically it was entirely a publicity thing, especially when FDR later said in a press conference that the bombers used a secret base called Shangri La.Ìý
What about the carriers being sighted on the first attack? Think the Japanese are stupid enough to forget about that? -
Message 14
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Friday, 21st April 2006
"Isn't that (Japanese victory at Midway) better in a seperate thread?Ìý
Not really. The Doolittle raid stimulated the Japanese high command into approving the Midway operation. Had the raid not taken place, there is reason to believe that the Japanese attempt to take Midway would never have occurred. -
Message 15
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Friday, 21st April 2006
Kurt,
Yes in short. My reasons follow (and yes, they do duplicate others).
Morale: It was effective in boosting morale amongst American (and their Allies) civilians and military.
Tactical: It reinforced the power of the Carrier in naval warfare. (Imagine the result if the tremedous efforts of the yards had gone into building battleships instead, highly unlikely I'll admit, yet it may have put the final nail in the coffin?).
Strategic: It did provoke the Japanese into attacking at Midway, and gave the USA a chance to hand out a beating.
Cheers AA. -
Message 16
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Friday, 21st April 2006
There are times when you have to fight back regardless of the expense in lives and equipment. Up to the Doolittle raid Japan hadnt been attacked at all. The scattering of a handfull of bombs had an effect out of all proportion to their explosive effects. It boosted Allied morale sky high and was a firm kick in the guts to Japan.
Ìý
That about says it all.
Matt. -
Message 17
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Saturday, 22nd April 2006
Thank you all for your contributions. I thought it worth it for the morale boost alone, without even considering it's role in precipitating the Battle of Midway. The heavy price that the Chinese paid was not for naught either as it solidified the alliance the American people felt with China at that time and bolstered public support for continued efforts to assist the Chinese in their own struggle.
I think perhaps part of the psychological blow to the Japanese was not just that they thought the were beyond reach of the American military. It was also because their own perceptions of the Americans as a soft people who would not fight were challanged by this attack of which any samurai would have been proud. They realized that they were up against warrriors.
Kurt -
Message 18
Posted by henrylee100 (U536041) on Monday, 24th April 2006
I think you've taken my post out of context. The colossal defeat to which I was referring was the Midway defeat. Taking my post as a whole, I think that's pretty clear.
You'd make a good tabloid reporter.
Ìý
except that in this thread your post is up there for everyone to see. Far as I understood your posts the chain of cause and effec you propose is as follows
Pearl Harbor -> Doolittle raid -> Midway-> Japanese defeat
againt I might have misconstrued what you were trying to say but far as I understood you suggest that if we remove the Doolittle raid then Midway has to go too and then the Japanese defeat somehow becomes less certain.
My point is that even if there had been neither the Doolittle raid nor Midway, Japan would have lost anyway. -
Message 19
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Monday, 24th April 2006
I think you've taken my post out of context. The colossal defeat to which I was referring was the Midway defeat. Taking my post as a whole, I think that's pretty clear.
You'd make a good tabloid reporter.
Ìý
except that in this thread your post is up there for everyone to see. Far as I understood your posts the chain of cause and effec you propose is as follows
Pearl Harbor -> Doolittle raid -> Midway-> Japanese defeat
againt I might have misconstrued what you were trying to say but far as I understood you suggest that if we remove the Doolittle raid then Midway has to go too and then the Japanese defeat somehow becomes less certain.
My point is that even if there had been neither the Doolittle raid nor Midway, Japan would have lost anyway.
Ìý
Well heck, let's settle this then. I have no doubt that whether or not the Doolittle raid occurred that Japan would have lost the war, but there are many things that might have happened had the raid not been carried out. Some possibilities/probabilities might have altered the military position in the Pacific enormously.
Consider this: The army wanted to complete their conquest of New Guinea and rejected the Midway operation. At the time, Japan was in the throes of victory and its leader was an army general. It's possible - even likely - that the Japanese decision without Doolittle's raid may have taken them in that direction. Let's assume that's what occurred and that there was no Battle of Midway.
With its Carrier Strike Force intact, it's not likely that Japanese military would have failed to take New Guinea. With New Guinea in their hands, the Guadalcanal campaign probably would not have taken place and Japan would have built their air base on that island. I have no doubt they then would have taken New Caledonia -- who would stop them? Certainly not the French. That would have given them command of the air between the US and Australia/New Zealand and without being able to use those countries as staging and training areas, as well as naval bases, the war could have been much, much more difficult and undoubtedly would have been significantly prolonged.
I have the feeling that you don't realize how incredibly lucky the US was at Midway. The Japanese had every advantage and had it not been for an almost unbelievable sequence of Japanese mishaps and American good fortune coupled with determination by a couple of US air-group commanders, that battle would have been a huge Japanese victory. The possibility of that kind of US luck/Japanese misfortune coming the way of America in a second carrier-to-carrier confrontation is slim almost to the point of impossibility, and with those Japanese carriers, their skilled pilots, aircrew and ground crew intact, the US would have been fortunate indeed to have gained the upper hand in the Pacific by 1945-6. It might well have turned US concentration from the European Theatre and resulted in a prolongation of that conflict.
Ergo...the Doolittle raid permitted Yamamoto to proceed with the Midway operation. The Midway operation resulted in an unbelievably fortunate American victory. That victory wiped out four of Japan's finest carriers, and with them some of the best aircrews and groundcrews in the world at the time. Those losses gave the US the gumption to try and prevent the Japanese from building an airstrip on Guadalcanal (even after Midway, there were a lot of US commanders thought that the Guadalcanal invasion was suicide -- and the area commander, Admiral Ghormley, was one of them). Guadalcanal chewed up the Japanese army badly, showed the world that the Japanese could be beaten, was a huge morale boost for the American people, and gave the US time it desperately needed to establish a firm naval presence in the Pacific...it was the turning point of the war...a turning point that might never have occurred without Midway......
So you see....the Doolittle raid had a tremendous impact on the progress of the Pacific war. It made possible the Midway operation, which resulted in a huge US victory, weakened the Japanese irretrievably, and in the long haul, it really increased the chances of an early allied victory.
I was a Doo-Much raid, actually.....(sorry..couldn't resist) -
Message 20
Posted by henrylee100 (U536041) on Tuesday, 25th April 2006
Consider this: The army wanted to complete their conquest of New Guinea and rejected the Midway operation. At the time, Japan was in the throes of victory and its leader was an army general. It's possible - even likely - that the Japanese decision without Doolittle's raid may have taken them in that direction. Let's assume that's what occurred and that there was no Battle of Midway.Ìý
well but didn't the Japanes attempt to seize Port Moresby at the southern tip of New Guinea predate the Midway operation? I mean wasn't there first move after the Doolittle raid directed at New Guinea anyway? And you did point out in another post that Yamamoto wanted to attack Midway all along so they would have attacked it sooner or later.
Sure there was the luck factor at Midway that played a major role in helping the US win there, but I don't all that luck can be attributed to the Doolittle raid, the Americans may still have lost, or alternatively they may still have been lucky and won had the attack on Midway come later. imho the only arguement that can be made for the Doolittle raid in terms of its impact on Midway is that without it those air groups commanders may not have been as determined as they were and may still have lost the battle in spite of the Japanese mishaps, but we're then back to the moral booster role of the raid which noone ever denies. Imho assigning more significance to it based on the supposed butterfly effect it had on the whole pacific war is a bit of a streatch. -
Message 21
Posted by wollemi (U2318584) on Tuesday, 25th April 2006
Consider this: The army wanted to complete their conquest of New Guinea and rejected the Midway operation. At the time, Japan was in the throes of victory and its leader was an army general. It's possible - even likely - that the Japanese decision without Doolittle's raid may have taken them in that direction. Let's assume that's what occurred and that there was no Battle of Midway.Ìý
well but didn't the Japanes attempt to seize Port Moresby at the southern tip of New Guinea predate the Midway operation? I mean wasn't there first move after the Doolittle raid directed at New Guinea anyway? Ìý
Battle of the Coral Sea in early May 1942, which prevented an amphibious invasion of Port Moresby. The Japanese then came overland. Midway was the following month, June.
The battles in Papua New Guinea were as much survival against the mountainous jungle terrain as anything else. Without the support of the local Papuans - and the Japanese received very little of that - numbers may not have counted for much -
Message 22
Posted by Turnwrest (U2188092) on Tuesday, 25th April 2006
The battles along the Kokoda Trail, all the way from wairopi back, then the advance, were dependant on the Papuan porters, who carried virtually everything the army needed. I think it's the only campaign where a special medal was awarded for such a group.
The Japanese plans for Midway were unduly
complex, and thus likely to be disrupted by the operation of the fog of war - just as those for the so-called Battle of Leyte Gulf were. If they had concentrated their forces, they really should have been able to deal with the USN's carriers (any restrike on East Island or Sand Island could have been assigned to the air groups from the light carriers, as one example, or their a/c, rather than the seaplanes, could have done the recce). If the American carriers had been destroyed, even at the cost of the four Japanese ones actually lost, there really weren't any repalcements until mid 43, when the first Essex class came into service - unless the US had attempted to use CVEs in the front line, which isn't an attractive thought). -
Message 23
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Tuesday, 25th April 2006
Consider this: The army wanted to complete their conquest of New Guinea and rejected the Midway operation. At the time, Japan was in the throes of victory and its leader was an army general. It's possible - even likely - that the Japanese decision without Doolittle's raid may have taken them in that direction. Let's assume that's what occurred and that there was no Battle of Midway.Ìý
well but didn't the Japanes attempt to seize Port Moresby at the southern tip of New Guinea predate the Midway operation? I mean wasn't there first move after the Doolittle raid directed at New Guinea anyway? And you did point out in another post that Yamamoto wanted to attack Midway all along so they would have attacked it sooner or later.Ìý
Yes. That resulted in the Battle of the Coral Sea during which the US lost the big carrier Lexington and the Japanese lost the light carrier Shoho. But if Yamamoto had failed in his appeal to the high command to go after Midway, there's a strong possibility that the Japanese would have taken another crack at Port Moresby from the sea. They were already attempting an attack across the Owen Stanley Mountain range, but it was proving too difficult.
Sure there was the luck factor at Midway that played a major role in helping the US win there, but I don't all that luck can be attributed to the Doolittle raid, the Americans may still have lost, or alternatively they may still have been lucky and won had the attack on Midway come later.Ìý
The Doolittle raid had nothing to do with the actual victory at Midway. What it did was stimulate the high command into letting
Yamamoto have his way and proceed with the plan to attack Midway. Had Doolittle not made that raid, there's a very good chance that the attack on Midway might never have been attempted.
imho the only arguement that can be made for the Doolittle raid in terms of its impact on Midway is that without it those air groups commanders may not have been as determined as they were and may still have lost the battle in spite of the Japanese mishaps, but we're then back to the moral booster role of the raid which noone ever denies.Ìý
I've said this ad nauseum...the Doolittle raid had the effect of stimulating the Japanese high command into approving the Midway operation. It had nothing to do with the actual battle itself. Had that raid not taken place, the Midway operation may not have been approved, and the battle may never have occurred. And as for the American luck at that battle, I think if you check the records at Annapolis, you'll find that repeated playing of that particular battle in war games results in a Japanese victory more than 90 percent of the time. To expect the US to get the series of incredibly lucky breaks that it got -- sudden whims of an air group commander to fly just a little further, a Japanese destroyer leading a flight of US dive bombers right to the carriers --- and then, when the dive bombers appear, the Japanese having decks loaded with a/c armed and fueled for battle, bombs scattered all over the place, with the Japanese CAP on the deck chasing after torpedo planes so the dive bombers couldn't be intercepted.....not likely.
Imho assigning more significance to it based on the supposed butterfly effect it had on the whole pacific war is a bit of a streatch.Ìý
Of course, you're free to think what you like, but the fact remains, it had a tremendous domino effect on the progress of the war.
Don't be so anxious to dismiss the domino effect that a single event can have on history. It's surprising how much effect a single person doing something different can have. For e.g.: If Ramsay had not been in command of the Dunkirk evacuation -- if he had not been so insistent on retaining control of the big destroyers,and had he not been able to talk Pound into releasing them to his command, the Dunkirk evacuation would never have been successful and I haven't the slightest doubt that the British gov't would have asked Hitler for an armistice. One man -- Ramsay -- had he not been there, the whole history of Europe -- and the world -- from 1940 on would almost certainly be vastly different..
The Doolittle raid may very well have altered the entire course of the Pacific war.... -
Message 24
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Wednesday, 26th April 2006
The battles along the Kokoda Trail, all the way from wairopi back, then the advance, were dependant on the Papuan porters, who carried virtually everything the army needed. I think it's the only campaign where a special medal was awarded for such a group.
The Japanese plans for Midway were unduly
complex, and thus likely to be disrupted by the operation of the fog of war - just as those for the so-called Battle of Leyte Gulf were. If they had concentrated their forces, they really should have been able to deal with the USN's carriers (any restrike on East Island or Sand Island could have been assigned to the air groups from the light carriers, as one example, or their a/c, rather than the seaplanes, could have done the recce). If the American carriers had been destroyed, even at the cost of the four Japanese ones actually lost, there really weren't any repalcements until mid 43, when the first Essex class came into service - unless the US had attempted to use CVEs in the front line, which isn't an attractive thought). Ìý
That's essentially correct as far as the US ability to pursue a successful war is concerned, but not exactly right when it comes to carriers still available. If the US lost Hornet, Enterprise and Yorktown at Midway, they'd still have had Saratoga, Ranger, and Wasp. Wasp and Ranger were lightweights compared to the Sara, but they were not CVE's. Both could run at 30 knots and Wasp embarked 84 a/c and Ranger 72. (Enterprise carried 85). And the Essex was commission at the end of 1942 (Dec 31st to be precise, so the gap probably would have close pretty quickly.
The major problem, had Midway never been fought or had it been lost, would have been the inability ot the US to use Australia and NZ as staging/training areas. The Japanese would almost certainly have taken New Caledonia and with airstrips there and on Guadalcanal, they'd have cut off communication between the US and down under. They could never have taken Australia and I don't think they'd have been fool enough to try, but by isolating it, they could neutralize its effect on the war effort.
It would have been a much tougher way to victory for the allies had the Doolittle raid never taken place.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.