Why did Admiral Fletcher Withdraw from Guadalcanal?

The strategic decision of Admiral Mark A. Mitscher, serving as Commander, Aircraft Carriers USS Enterprise and USS Saratoga, to withdraw the carriers from Guadalcanal on August 9, 1942, remains a pivotal moment in the Guadalcanal Campaign. This move, driven by critical factors, marked a turning point in the battle.

The Strategic Context of the Guadalcanal Campaign

Guadalcanal, a critical island in the Solomon Islands archipelago, played a significant role in the Pacific Theater during World War II. The US Marine Corps seized the island in August 1942 in an attempt to secure an advanced airfield, codenamed Henderson Field. This operation, known as Operation Watchtower, was part of a broader strategy to establish a foothold in the Solomon Islands and push the Japanese out of the region.

The Decision to Withdraw the Carriers

Admiral Fletcher, code-named "Fletcher Force," was responsible for the carrier striking capability during the campaign. By August 9, 1942, Fletcher faced a series of challenges that necessitated the withdrawal of his carriers. Here are the critical factors that led to this decision:

Loss of Fighters

By the end of the second day of the campaign, Fletcher had suffered a significant reduction in his fighter aircraft due to combat losses. Specifically, there had been a loss of about 20 fighters, significantly reducing the air cover that the carriers could provide. Jimmy Thach, who was a prominent fighter pilot, succinctly summarized the importance of fighters: "Only fighters keep carriers afloat." This message highlighted the critical nature of maintaining air superiority.

Fuel Supply

Fletcher was also informed by his captains that fuel supplies were running low. This was a critical issue, as the carriers required fuel not only for their planes but also for their own operations. Running out of fuel could jeopardize the entire mission, and the potential for a forced landing in enemy territory was a significant risk.

Concerns about Land-Based Air and Submarine Threats

Another factor that influenced the decision was the presence of land-based Japanese airpower and the possibility of predictable patterns in operations. Japanese aircraft based in Rabaul and Truk were capable of launching surprise attacks, and operating in a predictable pattern could make the carriers vulnerable. Additionally, there was a concern about the presence of Japanese submarines in the surrounding waters. This threat added another layer of complexity to the already challenging situation.

The Potential Consequences of Remaining

Had Fletcher chosen to remain with his carriers, the consequences could have been severe. The USS Jarvis, for instance, was sunk by torpedo bombers in an engagement that might have resulted in significant loss if Fletcher had not made the decision to withdraw his forces. Fletcher's preocupation with the potential for additional losses was well-founded, as several carriers suffered damage or were sunk by Japanese submarines in the following months.

Admiral Fletcher was confident that the Japanese would send carriers to Guadalcanal and knew that he had to keep his forces strong enough to repel them. His decision to withdraw the carriers allowed him to preserve the strength of his fleet, enabling him to stand up to the Japanese threat when it arrived.

Colonel Melvin Maas' Insight

The insights of Colonel Melvin Maas, who was present during the decision-making process, provide an invaluable perspective. Maas, a Marine Corps officer, noted that the withdrawal of carriers at the end of the second day was a necessary step. His statement, "Withdrawal of carriers at end of second day not ord..." highlights the tactical and strategic significance of the decision.

This decision by Fletcher not only ensured the safety of his forces but also set the stage for a successful defense of Guadalcanal. If the battle had been lost, it is unlikely that the island could have been held against the Japanese onslaught.