Talk:Doolittle Raid

An event in this article is a April 18 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment)

Japanese casualties

I added Japanese casualties. Source (Japanese page)

Zeimusu 01:40, 2004 Apr 18 (UTC)

US casulties

2 dead 8 POW seems to be the correct casulty numbers, so I've reverted the page to that. If somebody knows better could they give a reference.Zeimusu 12:21, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

Aftermath tweaks

I made a couple PoV tweaks, since I think things like "massacre" and "sheer willpower" are a bit subjective for an encyclopedia (even if I think they're right on target).

I also wonder if anyone has an official source for the number of Chinese the Japanese killed in retaliation for harbording the raiders? I don't find 25,000 to be a suspect figure, but I've seen numbers citing anywhere from a couple hundred (almost assuredly too low) to a quarter million or more (on par with Nanking), so citing something might be wise.

A new book, "1942" by Winston Groom, addresses this and other points in some detail. Groom says 250,000.

How did Doolittle and others get back to the US?

Russian Internment

One of the B-25s landed in the Soviet Union, where they were interned by the Russians. I heard that this a fairly heroic story in itself. I heard the crew was taken to a gulag or some type of concentration camp where they escaped to Nepal. I can't find anything on the Internet confirming this, but if anyone has any literature pertaining to this, it would be great to add to this article.

Why? I thought the Russians were allies, for pete's sake. And the US was flying aircraft to Fairbanks for Russian pilots to fly onward to support the war effort on the eastern front. So what if they flew unexpectedly into the Soviet Union - that's no reason for them to be treated that way! Surely Roosevelt asked Stalin why this happened. GBC (talk) 15:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

They were allies of convenience on their Western Front. They did not share the same allegiances or goals with the US...and the relationship with the US was contentious as their ideologies were diametrically opposed. Same thing happened to some B-29 Superfortress crews who had to divert to the Soviet Union after bombing runs over Japan leading to Soviet technological advances in aviation. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Russia was not at war with Japan at the time of the Doolittle raid; as a neutral country they could not actively assist the US. The fact the US and Russia were allied against Germany doesn't matter. Nibios (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't find any article supporting this, but if they had escaped, the "internment" would be irrelevent. So Unless someone comes up with a cited source, I'll delete that portion sometime this week.--Hourick (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

After talking to a couple of people from that era, it was widely known that they were interred by the Russians for diplomatic reasons. The only thing left is to find an online article or find the information in a book and to have it cited, until then, I will leave it out unless there is a consensus.--Hourick (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Gentlemen, the story is related in detail by Carroll Glines in his most recent history of the raid. York's crew was moved from Siberia into the interior of Russia and held for over a year under more or less "house arrest" until finally being allowed to work outside their quarters. They decided to try to escape mainly because the inactivity and monotony was endangering their mental health, and arranged to be smuggled into Iran in mid-1943. I'll see what I can do about writing up and documenting a brief summary of the event.--Reedmalloy (talk) 09:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Doolittle court martial

Anyone got any info on why Doolittle was expecting to be court martialled? Within the context of the article it is a kind of out of the blue statement. Otherwise, well written. Divad 15:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

ive expanded that a bit source is history of b35 mitchell

Thanks. ~~

Fighter units to home islands

Where can I find information related to the transfer of Japanese military units to the mainland because of the raid? I'm researching the Doolittle raid's effect on the Battle of Midway. Any references would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

I'm interested in this too. As far as I know, air strength in the Battle Of Midway was not reduced. Aspie1 00:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Just what I was thinking too. I would think any fighters retained for defense of Japan would be land based, which would have no effect on carrier air strength. SkipSmith (talk) 03:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Renaming

In accordance to the Article Guidelines of the Military History WikiProject, I move that the title of this article be changed to "Doolittle Bombing Mission" or something similarly neutral.--Benn M. 10:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello. The project guidelines say this: But other names can be used if they are the most common ways to refer to the battle. So Attack on Pearl Harbor and Doolittle Raid are acceptable. :) -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 10:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Dang. I missed that. Sorry for the time taken. But thanks!--Benn M. 10:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

No problem at all. It takes some time to learn the ropes. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 10:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

A cynical name

I suggest "Did little raid" because strategic bombing does not usually have any positive effect until around 50% of the target (usually a city) is destroyed. In a serious war, less than that causes war awareness in the enemy and return to apathy in the bombing country. Perhaps those who think that making it look like their country is winning "improves moral" are thinking more in terms of re-election. David R. Ingham 08:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... So you think that if 20% - 40% of a city is destroyed, this is a good thing for the country being attacked. To paraphrase a common saying, "with successes like that, who needs defeats?" In actually, in modern war, destruction of the correct 10% of a city/region (communications, power supplies, fuel depots, major transportation junctions) can completely wreck the city's economy and completely eliminate the capacity for residents of that city/region to wage war. Johntex\^talk 00:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The psychological effects were first and formost to appease Americans in the immediate aftermath of Pearl Harbor. Strategically it was a blip, but it bloodied the nose of Japan, and that's what the U.S. wanted at the time. To call it the "did-little-raid" User:David R. Ingham (1942 Japanese propaganda notwithstanding) is a slap in the face of 80 incredibly brave and selfless men. These guys launched medium bombers from an aircraft carrier!!! Nobody had ever done that before. These guys bombed mainland Japan!!! Nobody had ever done that before. Some of them were killed in crash landings be it land or sea. Some were executed by the Japanese. A lot of them made it back home. Nothing about this mission was easy, they all knew the risk when they volunteered. These men were/are truely an example of "the greatest generation".

Akloki 22:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Psychological Importance of the Doolittle Raid

Dr. Ingham, I believe it was the psychological effect on the Japanese military elite and the average Japanese citizen that was the true positive outcome of the Doolittle Raid. The Japanese home islands had not been attacked during wartime for hundreds of years. Japan's wars preceding its attack on China and its entry into WWII largely consisted of naval engagements fought elsewhere, or acts of aggression and occupation by its army of a foreign people. The raid made the average Japanese citizen aware that his or her homeland was not the impenetrable fortress once imagined; sooner or later, a determined enemy could strike back at Japan itself. I think the psychological context of wartime must be taken into consideration here when examining the Doolittle Raid.

POV

This article needs major POV work, as it stands right now it's very very anti-Japanese and pro-American. 203.112.2.212 21:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous statement, the only thing that might be considered "anti-Japanese" in this article is the mentioning of the criminal treatment of American POWs, which of course is a fact of history, and so to characterize it as "anti-Japanese" is purely POV. User:Mrbigg9969

Have to agree with 1st comment, although it appears minor. E.g. for some reason on the 9 February 2006 the word 'poor' was replaced with 'horrible' in "...beriberi as a result of the horrible conditions under which they were confined." A bit emotive: I changed it back! But nothing major. User:Mononen

It is an article about the U.S. retaliatory campaign against Japan. It is anti- Japanese only to the extent that the U.S. bombed Japan. Would reiterating that it was an answer to Japan attacking the American fleet, only further your assertation that it is anti-Japanese? Perhaps you can rewrite the article from the POV of placenta eating liberal Australian puppies? (See User:203.112.2.212) Akloki 23:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Akloki

The bias of the article lies in the omission, in the "Effects of the Raid" section, of any mention of Japanese casualties, which one would expect to be included in any comprehensive entry on the subject. --Pooneil 21:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Japanese casualties are mentioned in the box on the right of the page, but maybe we should work it into the text of the article. SkipSmith (talk) 03:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Dummy Tail Guns

The article states "To discourage Japanese air attacks from the rear of the planes, each B-25 was also "armed" with two dummy wooden machine gun barrels mounted in the tail cone." I recall Ted Lawson's book, "Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo", saying that a single broomstick was inserted in the tail cone. The movie "Pearl Harbor" depicted two broomsticks, but the movie used B-25J models with the top turrent forward of the bomb bay, versus aft of the bomb bay on the actual B-25B that flew the misison.

Please do not base facts on a movie, especially one like Pearl Harbor. It was a great movie, but not all that accurate. 72.248.126.101 12:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Pearl Harbor a great movie? Your judgement will forever be questioned.

Pearl Harbor was a fantastic movie and very factually accurate.

Amount of self-inflected damage due to Japanese AA guns missing?

I've heard somewhere that comparable damage (or more) to some of the Japense towns was done by the Japanese own AA guns shooting due to how low the planes were firing, and the AA shells missing and gravity doing the rest. Does anyone have sources on how accuracute (if at all) that statement is? Joncnunn 16:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about this particular case, but it was actually a pretty common problem when AA was used near cities. For instance, Honolulu suffered damage from American AA guns during the Pearl Harbor attack. SkipSmith (talk) 03:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Source for details and photos

These press releases:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2006/20060420_4875.html

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2006/20060419_4864.html

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2006/20060419_4861.html

are a source of details and photos for this article. 66.167.138.3 21:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC).

Zhejiang-Jiangxi massacres removed?

A while back this very relevant piece of information was still on this article. Now it is gone. May I ask in the least pissed-off way possible, why? Everyone remembers the Doolittle raiders, but does anyone care about the people who helped them in their hour of need and paid in blood for it? -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 04:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Errors found

The photo of the crew seems to be mirror-inverted, check the name tags on the high-res version. Can anyone fix that?

The article states that the decision to launch the planes early was made by Doolittle and Hornet skipper Captain Marc Mitscher. However, according to General Doolittles autobiography "I Could Never be So Lucky Again ", the decision was made by Admiral Halsey (presumably with staff), who flashed the message "LAUNCH PLANES X TO COL DOOLITTLE AND GALLANT COMMAND GOOD LUCK AND GOD BLESS YOU"

I've read the same thing in oher books. Trak77 20:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• The silver toasting goblets and cognac are maintained in Arnold Hall at the USAFA and not at the NMUSAF at Wright-Patterson AFB in Ohio. Incidentally, the goblets of the deceased members are displayed upside down.T. E. Goodwin 19:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Links and more info

Background info on William G. "Billy" Farrow can be found in the link below where the SC General Assembly nominated him for a Conressional Medal of Honor. He lived one block from my father's family in the small town of Darlington, SC. [1]

This should be added to the external links section: [2]

The PBS link about the Japanese attack on 250,000 Chinese civilians is no longer a valid link. Not sure where to find the original intended article on PBS.

APackrat 19:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I love it when a plan comes together

The inspiration for using B-25s came from King's intel officer, Captain Francis S. "Frog" Low (who you can now find on List of military figures by nickname). Trekphiler 08:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there was three aircraft considered, The Martin B-26, Douglas B-18 & the North American B-25 - with all due consideration, only the B-25 was suitable for carrie launch (I think the B-18 wingspan was to long and the B-26 needed too much take-off room) - somewhere in the back of my mind I also remember a fourth aircraft being considered but not sure if it was the A-20 or the B-23? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.212.28.50 (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

American tactical victory?

Aside from a psychological victory, this wasn't really an American tactical victory. Little damage was done, for the price of trained pilots and planes. User talk:24.192.80.129

Article doesn't talk to implications of raid, but all authoritative texts do. True, it wasn't a tactical "victory" not was it intended to be one, but it had major ramifications in reaction of senior Japanese military leadership and served as a major boost to American morale during a low point following months of successive Japanese victories. If you refer to Battle of Midway article, you'll see ties to raid as instigation of that tideturning battle. At any rate, why not add your thoughts to artcle then? HJ 23:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a moot point now. The notion that the crews were highly trained is a myth--per Doolittle the crews had 3 weeks of training, and much of that interrupted by no-fly days due to weather. They were competent crews, but the training was rushed and Mitscher's after action report criticizes all the AAF crews (including by inference Doolittle) except one for "improper and dangerous takeoffs". (Halsey OTOH praised the crews). Mitscher said they were excited and nervous and did not pay attention to Navy recommendations. The 16 planes lost was not catastrophic considering that 80% of the crewmen returned to the US.--Buckboard 16:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

B-25

Greg Goebel also covers this mission here. I think it would be wonderful if someone could add a short paragraph explaining why the B-25 in particular was chosen to fly the mission - I assume it had the correct locus of payload, range, size, performance, and availability, but it would be nice to have an official source, from a book. In its current form the article has very little about the B-25, and someone unfamiliar with WW2 bombers, or who has not played Aces High II, might be baffled. e.g. "Doolittle evaluated the USAAF's roster of attack aircraft, and concluded that the B-25 Mitchell was most suitable for the job. It was small enough to operate from an aircraft carrier; it had an optimum range of X, allowing the carriers sufficient stand-off distance, and it carried sufficient payload to do more than symbolic damage. It outperformed the next most suitable candidate, the (insert)", that kind of thing. You can have those sentences, I made them specially for you. -Ashley Pomeroy 17:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I added the information. Doolittle's own report states why the B-25 was chosen and I used his sentences. Thanx anyway.--Buckboard 18:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Other Aircraft

While not necessary for inclussion with the main article, B-25B 40-2347(17th BG, 95th BS) still exsists. This was one of the aircraft the Raiders trained with and was flown to California to be loaded upon the USS Hornet - minor engine problems caused this aircraft and several others to be left behind (only the best aircraft were loaded) - the crew of this aircraft did go with the USS Hornet (as a back-up crew). This aircraft is currently in storage and awaiting restoration... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.212.28.50 (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Map

This article needs one. Something showing the planned launch site, the actual launch site, the proposed and actual targets, the landing areas, etc. Any help? Matt Deres (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Psychological impact on strategic decisions

While the tactical side of the attack did indeed accomplish little, the fact of its occurrence did have a major impact on Japanese military strategy, which thereafter planned the Midway attack in order to eventually draw out, engage and destroy American naval forces in the Central Pacific, seeking to insure that direct attack on the Japan itself could not reoccur for the foreseeable future. Viewed in this light, the Doolittle Raid was a rather important moment in the history of the Pacific War, and the article should eventually relate that. --Chr.K. (talk) 13:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you may be correct, but without a good cite of scholarly research or other recognized references, it can't be included. --rogerd (talk) 15:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Remaining crew

Apparently down to nine remaining Raiders - Capt. (later Maj. Gen) David M. Jones, pilot of 40-2283 passed away 25 Nov 08. Obit at http://www.legacy.com/tucson/Obituaries.asp?Page=Lifestory&PersonId=120858836