I think given the limited resources that the Pacific Fleet has at this time in 1942, any of the aforementioned tasks would be leaving the door open for a Japanese main fleet strike at a vital point (why did they not attempt a return to Pearl Harbor?). The subs were stretched thin and were aggressively patrolling, especially in the South Seas. The primary task was to halt the Japanese juggernaut that was overtaking the Phillipines, Java and seriously threatening the Australian coast. I think if there were sufficient resources, Roosevelt may have tried to carry the fight in these areas, leaving the Doolitle Raid to the symbolic role it represents today.

First, I think the Doolittle Raid was similar to the story of the Three Bears – it was just right

Quoted Text

---

First, I think the Doolittle Raid was similar to the story of the Three Bears – it was just right

---

MJ,

I love your analogy, easy to understand, clear and concise!

I love the other question regarding a Japanese push or second raid into Pearl Harbor. Many years ago I had a professor who taught a class in US military history,to good to pass up! We argued over the same question, I always felt, and still do, that the logistic requirements to sustain operations over the vastness of the Pacific were impossible for the Japanese. He felt that the Japanese blew the war in the first month by not seizing Pearl Harbor and the rest of Hawaii. He had never served in the military and based most of his assumptions on a "Risk" like set of parameters that allowed him to just pick up pieces at will and move them here and there. I think most of us are aware of the tremendous difficulties of sustaining operations on a large scale over long and hostile distances. So, why didn't the Japanese return...because they also understood the tremendous risk and difficulty over those great distances with a now openly hostile US Navy wounded but not out.

Rick Cooper

I don't know how well the US sub fleet would have stopped another Japanese push given their problems with faulty torps. I would have to say the JAps did try a second time to take Pearl. It was called the battle of Midway. Had they taken the Island their fleet would have had ground base support that could reach almost to pearl.

Josh Weingarten
aka shiryon

Josh--having been to Midway Island, I can't see where it would be much of a fleet anchorage point. Also, the distance from Midway to Pearl would have taxed the fuel and bomb capacity of any Japanese tactical aircraft. I see the conquest of Midway by the Japanese as more a liability than an asset. I will grant you that it would have been another shot to morale in the US, but its strategic or tactical value to the Japanese is dubious in my opinion.
DJ

believe we all agree the Doolittle Raid achieved its ends and then some. Following their triumph, the Philippines capitulates in May of 1942 ("Heads bowed, but not in shame...") If you were the Commander and Chief would you have retain MacArthur in the Pacific? Remember his lethargic reactions in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor (Clark Field, Cavite, etc.)
DJ

I have to agree with the "just right" element of the Doolittle Raid. It did risk half of our Pacific carrier forc (the "why" of the early launch of the raiders, after discovery), but only risked 16 medium bombers, a force of which the Army Air Corps had a large number, at the time.

The Japanese did not come back to Pearl, because they could no longer gain the surprise necessary. After Midweay, they lacked the force necessary.

From what I can find teh US had 16 battleships in active status at the time of Pearl Harbor, 8 in teh Pacific and 8 in the Atlantic. There were 8 (Langley, Saratoga, Lexington, Enterprise, Hornet, Yorktown, Ranger & Wasp) aircraft carriers, with, I beieve 6 in the Pacific and two in teh Atlantic, though it may have been 5 & 3. The US also had 10 BBs building and 6 more BB & 2 Battle Cruisers authorized in late '41.

Ranger

DJ - I have stumbled upon teh starting lineups for the Pacific, circa 1941, still looking for Atlantic/Med.

Royal Navies Dutch Pc Flt US Asiatic FLT US Pac FLT Japanese Flt
Battleships 2 -- -- 8 10
Carriers -- -- -- 3 11
Cruisers 10 3 3 21 40
Destroyers 13 13 13 67 112
Submarines 0 15 29 27 63

The Royal Navies, I believe includes Australia and New Zealand forces

I'll keep looking for more definitive info on World Navies at start of WW2

Jeff

Without battleships, I would think it would be difficult to be very aggressive. Something like 7 out of those 8 US battleships were damaged at Pearl Harbor, three of them being destroyed. Without battleships to protect their three carriers, I can understand why the US did not aggressively strike back immediately after the Japanese bombings of Pearl Harbor.

Nic