The fact that an actual battle occurred seems to have escaped you. That is why.

Herald

By nobody do you mean 0 people or just YOU?

I ask because I have heard people refer to the BATTLE of Pearl Harbor. Using the standard definition of the word —battle— one would tend to logically conclude that the action that took place at Pearl Harbor on the seventh day of December in 1941 was, in actuality, a BATTLE.

So far, as far as I can tell at least, Herald has been stating that the event that occurred at Pearl on the aforementioned date was, in fact, a BATTLE.

So far, as far as I can tell, your only defense and argument against this point is the fact that people tend to say the ATTACK on Pearl.

The reason the BATTLE of Pearl Harbor is generally referred to as the ATTACK of Pearl Harbor is directly related to the fact that the Imperial Japanese ATTACKED the United States of America.

This does not mean a BATTLE did not take place.

Were Imperial Japanese vessels destroyed? Yes.

Were Imperial Japanese aircraft destroyed? Yes.

Were Imperial Japanese pilots killed? Yes.

Did the Imperial Japanese FIGHT or BATTLE the American forces at Pearl? Yes.

So far you appear to be using semantics as a SHIELD to ignore the fact that on the seventh day of December, in 1941, the Imperial Japanese and the United States of American BATTLED one another at Pearl Harbor in an event that was a BATTLE.

The same applies for the bombing of Tokyo.

In reply, for whatever reason single air attacks, no matter how successful, have never been treated as 'battles', but as raids.  A campaign of raids can become a battle as "Battle of Britain" or "Battle of Germany", but the individual strikes simply haven't been described that way.  Similarly, USN carrier forces made many strikes against Japanese island bases for purposes of harassement, recon by fire, and, later in the war, simply for training of new air groups.  Again, these weren't considered to be battles.  Only a long series of such attacks, like the air campaign against Rabaul are referred to that way. 

 

The Doolittle-Halsey raid of April 1942 was clearly a raid, not a battle.  The HORNET was simply serving as an a/c transport, ENTERPRISE was simply escorting the HORNET while its deck was encombered and they encountered nothing bigger than a fishing boad.  The B-25s engaged in a single strike, and anyway didn't do any meaningful military damage.  The whole business was intended purely for moral effect.  Even as an air raid, it was small potatoes by WW2 standards.

 

The Pearl Harbor attack was certainly very successful and inflicted more damage to the USN in terms of ships sunk and men killed than any single naval engagement of WW2, but again, it was simply a very successful air raid.  While the effect was certainly hard to differentiate from a battle from the US point of view, the Kido Butai wasn't even detected, let alone attacked.  It was a beating, not a fight.  It was a raid, not a battle.  The midget subs were a piece of foolishness resulting form the way the Japanese 'negotiated' battle planning.  Yamamoto had to agree to that to get the co-operation of the submarine community for his own plan.  Is it a matter of definitions?  Yes.  But definitions are what words like 'battle' and 'raid' are about.

definition of the term.

In this "battle" you "lose".

Have a NICE  day.

Herald

And which of those three definitions are you proposing??  How many time during

Any of them will do.

Herald

Then taking the first definition, two assistant cooks having a fist fight in the galley is a naval battle?

 

Herald, you had to go for the ladle right off the bat!  Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the cooks were in fact belly-button fighting?   That would make for one awkward Navel battled but I suppose it would satisfy ljr-s odd rationale.