Greatest Strategic Air Missions?

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 17:14:50 GMT, Andrew Chaplin
wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

Doolittle raid

Tactical mission, but politically strategic.

Was there not a change in the deployment of Japan's air forces as a
result? If so, would it not fall into the strategic realm?

BTSOM. We're quickly descending into the realm of semantics here. The
distinction that is usually applied to tactical-v-strategic is one of
goals rather than outcomes.

The goal of the Doolittle raid was certainly not to bring Japanese
industrial might to its knees nor to destroy critical military assets
but rather to demonstrate to both the American people and the enemy
that the war could be brought to the enemy's homeland.

The targets were minimal and the impact even less except for the
demonstration of resolve.

IMHO.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org

In article , Ed Rasimus
wrote:

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 17:14:50 GMT, Andrew Chaplin
wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

Doolittle raid

Tactical mission, but politically strategic.

Was there not a change in the deployment of Japan's air forces as a
result? If so, would it not fall into the strategic realm?

BTSOM. We're quickly descending into the realm of semantics here. The
distinction that is usually applied to tactical-v-strategic is one of
goals rather than outcomes.

The goal of the Doolittle raid was certainly not to bring Japanese
industrial might to its knees nor to destroy critical military assets
but rather to demonstrate to both the American people and the enemy
that the war could be brought to the enemy's homeland.

The targets were minimal and the impact even less except for the
demonstration of resolve.


Agreed that was the planners' intent. The Japanese reaction is what we
didn't predict. It caused considerable loss of face especially to the
Army, but also to the Navy in not guarding the homeland.

There is considerable postwar data that the fundamentally unwise
decision, in terms of strategic overreach, to attack Midway was a direct
consequence of the Doolittle raid. Capturing Midway would have extended
the outer security perimeter and thus have prevented further raids, or
so the staff thought.

Again, the "turning points" are different from different perspectives.
From the US position, the Japanese defeat at Midway turned the tide. For
any appreciable faction within the Japanese Naval staff, it was the
capture of Saipan that triggered the formation of a peace faction.
Japan put more value on Saipan as a key part of the inner perimeter than
the US had realized.

In article , Andrew Chaplin
wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

Doolittle raid

Tactical mission, but politically strategic.

Was there not a change in the deployment of Japan's air forces as a
result? If so, would it not fall into the strategic realm?

Part of the problem in placing this particular raid is that it was
planned mostly for domestic morale reasons, not the immense strategic
effect it actually had. We get into the fundamental definition of
"strategic".

In general, I use "strategic" to describe an air operation that will
have a significant effect on the entire war, without major interaction
with other operations. The Doolittle raid, in particular, brings up the
question "do the planners need to be aware they are trying for a major
[strategic] effect?"

This didn't appear to be a consideration in planning this raid -- the
effect was unforeseen. Perhaps we can also consider what might be
called "negative strategic" decisions, such as Goering deciding to stop
what we'd now call a SEAD campaign, and switch to city bombing.

ubject: Greatest Strategic Air Missions?
From: Howard Berkowitz
Date: 8/21/2004 4:06 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

In article , Andrew Chaplin
wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

Doolittle raid

Tactical mission, but politically strategic.

Was there not a change in the deployment of Japan's air forces as a
result? If so, would it not fall into the strategic realm?

Part of the problem in placing this particular raid is that it was
planned mostly for domestic morale reasons, not the immense strategic
effect it actually had. We get into the fundamental definition of
"strategic".

In general, I use "strategic" to describe an air operation that will
have a significant effect on the entire war, without major interaction
with other operations. The Doolittle raid, in particular, brings up the
question "do the planners need to be aware they are trying for a major
[strategic] effect?"

This didn't appear to be a consideration in planning this raid -- the
effect was unforeseen. Perhaps we can also consider what might be
called "negative strategic" decisions, such as Goering deciding to stop
what we'd now call a SEAD campaign, and switch to city bombing.



I think that hte greatest strategic missions was the Battle of Britain. It
changed the course of the wsr. It stopped the German invasion of England which
allowed us to fortify England which led to the Normandy imvasions which led to
final victory in western europe. I can think of no other air battles which come
even close in importance, power and success. A single battle which led to
final victory.




Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message
...
In article , Andrew Chaplin
wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

Doolittle raid

Tactical mission, but politically strategic.

Was there not a change in the deployment of Japan's air forces as a
result? If so, would it not fall into the strategic realm?

Part of the problem in placing this particular raid is that it was
planned mostly for domestic morale reasons, not the immense strategic
effect it actually had. We get into the fundamental definition of
"strategic".

In general, I use "strategic" to describe an air operation that will
have a significant effect on the entire war, without major interaction
with other operations.

I think you were sort of on the right course, but you left the tracks with
that last clause. "Without major interaction with other operations"? I'd
posit that if your goal does NOT "interact" with "other operations", as in
being complimentary of, then it is not only not a strategic operation, it is
probably one that was a wasted effort in the first place.

A better solution IMO would be to look at things from the overarching
strategic framework perspective. At the top you have strategy--the setting
of goals, and resourcing elemnts such that they can acheive those goals,
that lead to obtaining national goals, or the endstate desired. In a broad
sense, for example, our strategic goals for the combined bomber offensive
against Germany was to significantly reduce the effectiveness of German
industrial production, degrade their capability of transporting military
resources to their desired destinations, and defeat the morale of the German
populace and reduce their support for continuing the war. Next comes the
operational level, where successive campaigns are planned and resourced to
acheive these goals over a period of time; IMO, the "transportation plan"
and the "oil plan" were not really *strategies*--they were instead
operational level efforts aimed at helping acheive strategic objectives.
Then you would have the individual raids, which are essentially the tactical
level execution of the operational plans (i.e., they equate to "battles" in
the ground combat arena).

Note that we refer to what occured in Europe during WWII as the "European
Theater of Operations", not the "European Theater of Strategy".

The Doolittle raid, in particular, brings up the
question "do the planners need to be aware they are trying for a major
[strategic] effect?"

Yes, they do, and in this case they apparently did--the effect being more
the domestic morale boost that you pointed to above before you veered a bit
offcourse. That they *also* acheived some degree of strategic effect
(causing the Japanese to rethink and redeploy their available air assets)
may have been an unforseen benefit, but it had some strategic ramifications
nonetheless. And those strategic ramifications would have been measured in
how much they "interacted" (or more accurately impacted) other operations.
IMO, the Doolittle Raid was one of those rare exceptions to what I outlined
above; it was a single raid (or "battle") planned to acheive a strategic
goal (morale boost), that also had the added benefit of at least marginally
impacting what was then still a japanese "center of gravity", which was
their (at the time) still effective air operations throughout their theaters
of operations.


This didn't appear to be a consideration in planning this raid -- the
effect was unforeseen.

But it occured anyhow. The thread posits missions that had a strategic
impact, not necesarily those that acheived said impact that was preplanned
as an objective.

Perhaps we can also consider what might be
called "negative strategic" decisions, such as Goering deciding to stop
what we'd now call a SEAD campaign, and switch to city bombing.

I'd put that decision more into the "negative operational decision"
category; he changed the operational objective from defeating the RAF (an
operational objective if there ever was one) to the more daunting task of
defeating British morale with raids often targeted at nothing of direct
military value. And he had a rather paltry capability of acheiving that goal
(morale defeat) with the force he had available; say what you will about the
RAF targeting of large urban areas, but at least they had the muscle to make
an honest effort of it.

Brooks

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:23:23 -0700, "Leadfoot"
wrote:

What are some of the greatest strategic air missions?

Some candidates

Yamamoto shootdown

A tactical mission with strategic implications.

Hiroshima

Most assuredly strategic and resoundingly decisive. Changed the view
of airpower and war forever.

I have a theory that Hiroshima and Nagasaki actually prevented future
nuclear attacks by being examples of how horrible nuclear weapons are and
therefore saved many lives during the cold war.



Paul Doumer bridge LGB

The Doumer LGB mission in May of '72 was only one of a long series of
Doumer Bridge missions dating back to Jan. '67. Immortalized in a
great Keith Ferris painting!

Clearly, in terms of "strategic" mission the North Vietnam war doesn't
offer many good examples. One could suggest that the 29-30 June '66
Hanoi oil raids were strategic, with significant destruction of POL
supplies and crippling of POL infrastructure.

Arguably the introduction of technological advances rather than
specific missions could be the strategic milestones. Anti-radiation
missiles, Wild Weasels, airborne command/control systems, ECM
self-protection, non-cooperative target ID, and precision guided
munition introductions to name a few.

Biggest strategic campaign, of course, would be Linebacker II.

Doolittle raid

Tactical mission, but politically strategic.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:23:23 -0700, "Leadfoot"
wrote:


Biggest strategic campaign, of course, would be Linebacker II.


I'd suggest the oil campaign against Germany in WW2
was rather more significant.

Keith

Subject: Greatest Strategic Air Missions?
From: "Keith Willshaw"
Date: 8/21/2004 2:01 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:23:23 -0700, "Leadfoot"
wrote:


Biggest strategic campaign, of course, would be Linebacker II.


I'd suggest the oil campaign against Germany in WW2
was rather more significant.

Keith

Absolutely. But it was a two pronged effort combining strategic and tactical
missions. The heavies hit targets like Ploesti we hit rhe oil storage farms and
traffic moving out of refineries like truck convoys and oil storage around
airfields and wherever we could find them. But many operations combind both
stragoic and tactical in combination. To think of them as totally separate is
to be thinking WW I.




Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

ubject: Greatest Strategic Air Missions?
From: "Keith Willshaw"
Date: 8/21/2004 2:01 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:23:23 -0700, "Leadfoot"
wrote:


Biggest strategic campaign, of course, would be Linebacker II.


I'd suggest the oil campaign against Germany in WW2
was rather more significant.

Keith


And let's never forget the massive and all encompassing transportation campaign
all across Europe.. Besides, the success of any campaign is better validated in
wars we won rather than wars we lost.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Keith Willshaw wrote:

I'd suggest the oil campaign against Germany in WW2
was rather more significant.


Had POL been a top priority beginning in 1942 I think the POL campaign would be
an obvious choice, but the fact that POL was not a high priority until 1944
kind of blurs its importance. According to Speer, had we systematically
attacked Germany's electricity (production and distribution) beginning in 1942,
the war in Europe would have ended 6-8 months sooner.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"