Documents / Document

The Army Air Forces in World War II, Vol. 1 (archived PDF)

Air Force Historical Studies Office · 863 pages · text from the file's own layer

This is Volume One of The Army Air Forces in World War II, titled Plans and Early Operations, January 1939 to August 1942, edited by Wesley Frank Craven and James Lea Cate. The University of Chicago Press first published it in 1948, and the Office of Air Force History reprinted it in 1983. The front matter explains how the AAF historical program was set up during the war. The index covers Pacific, Atlantic and European operations, and nothing in the text concerns unidentified aerial phenomena.

  • p. 303 …of Naval Opera- tions; Adm. Ernest J. King, Commander in Chief, U.S. Fleet; Gen. George…
  • p. 316 …So far as the Navy is concerned, Admiral King, as you know, is not only Chief…
  • p. 493 …Admiral King believed that the mines offered a tempting bait to the Japanese who were currently…
  • p. 526 …Hence Admiral King placed a bid for suffi- 461
  • p. 527 …t this stage of the war Admiral King had accepted the belief that his carrier planes…
  • p. 538 …plan by 2 9 June, when Admiral King submitted to the Joint Chiefs a proposal that…
  • p. 607 …type * O n 5 March 1942, Admiral King wrote to General Arnold as follows: “The experience…
  • p. 608 …s.’l A formal request by Admiral King to the Chief of the Army Air Forces…
  • p. 609 …In a letter of 9 March 1942 to Admiral King, he proposed “the estab- lishment of…
  • p. 614 …In June, Admiral King expressed the official Navy position on this point with the utmost clarity…
  • p. 615 …In a memorandum to Admiral King, General McNarney, Deputy Chief of Staff, on 26 May outlined…
  • p. 616 …viewed as a temporary deta~hment.?~ Admiral King’s reaction to these cautious proposals was expressed…
  • p. 618 …the same words as used by Admiral King a month earlier: the answer to the antisubmarine…
  • p. 621 …On 14 September, General Marshall wrote to Admiral King: “Experience with the First Bomber Command in…
  • p. 622 …T o General Marshall’s proposal of 14 September, Admiral King had replied that, although he…
  • p. 641 …54 A week later General Marshall, Admiral King, Harry Hopkins, and a small staff flew to…
  • p. 645 …that scheduled to operate from the United King- dom. Dry topic or no, organization must figure…
  • p. 684 …the principal air task in the United King- dom had long been conceived as strategic bombardment…
  • p. 707 …establishment of base depots in the United King- dom became the basis of action in January…
  • p. 724 …Implicit in all of the arrangements being made in the United King- dom was the belief…
  • p. 788 …Force, Pt. I ; Fleet Adm. Ernest J. King, First Official Report to the Secretary of the…
  • p. 793 …Memo for Adm, King from C/S, 17 Mar. 1 % ~ . 34. JPS 2I/j/D, 7…
  • p. 795 …4 Aug. 1942. 108. Zbid. 109. Adm. King’s Report on Battle of Midway, incl. in…
  • p. 797 …306, 29 June 1942; memos for Adm. King from Mar- shall, 26 June 1942, and for…
  • p. 802 …1942; CM-IN-0629, Chung- king to AGWAR, # # z , 3 Apr. 1942; memo for Gen. Arnold…
  • p. 805 …Ltr., Arnold to King, 2 5 Feb. 1942. certain evidence from all Allied and enemy sources…
  • p. 806 …Memo for King from McNarney, 26 May 1942. 7 1 . Ltr., King to Marshall, 10 June…
  • p. 807 …Ltr., Marshall to King, 14 Sept. 1942, TAB XIVA, in Bowles report; memo for C G…
  • p. 808 …to notes from Mar- shall and Adm. King). 3 2 . A I c m o for…
  • p. 814 …Forces to the United King- dom, App. A, 19 Aug. 1942. 50. Ltr., Col. H.L…
  • p. 851 …C.E., 48-50 Killin, Pfc, 219 Kilner Board, 1 2 0 Kimbolton, 63 I King…
  • p. 854 …in Chief, 515, 5 2 2 , 544. (see also King); controversy over air power vs. battleship…
T H E A R M Y A I R A R M B E T W E E N T W O W A R S
serious question that the latter could be expected in the future to
perform traditional functions in connection with bombardment mis-
sions. As he explained:
During these exercises, observation aviation appeared woefully obsolete in
performance, as did pursuit aviation in speed characteristics. Since new bom-
bardment aircraft possesses speed above two hundred miles per hour, any inter-
cepting o r supporting aircraft must possess greater speed characteristics if they
are to perform their missions. In the case of pursuit aviation, this increase of
speed must be so great as to make it doubtful whether pursuit aircraft can be
efficiently or safely operated either individually or in mass.
The answer to the problem thus posed was suggested in a statement
of first-rate importance to an understanding of ideas which subse-
quently governed the thinking of the Air Corps. “Bombardment avia-
tion,” General Westover observed, “has defensive fire power of such
quantity and effectiveness as to warrant the belief that with its modern
speeds it may be capable of effectively accomplishing its assigned
mission without support.” Indeed, the “ability of bombardment avia-
tion to fly in close formation and thus to insure greater defense
against air attack, together with improved efficiency of silencers and
camouflage,” argued that “no known agency can frustrate the accom-
plishment of a bombardment mission.” lS6
That the bomber would have the first call in the development of
new equipment, and that the trend of thought favored a combination
of the reconnaissance and bombardment function in one plane, was
suggested by an engineering study, undertaken in July 1933 by the Ma-
teriel Division at Wright Field, of the problem of “maximum range”
with “a 2,000 pound bomb load.” The result of that study indicated
that a range of 5,000 miles at a speed of 2 0 0 miles per hour was prac-
ticable. Accordingly, in December the Air Corps submitted to the
War Department in its so-called Project A a proposal to build a
plane of that range. In support of the proposal it was pointed out that
such a plane would “not alone reinforce either coast line.. . but would
definitely enable.. .reinforcement of.. . Panama and Hawaii.” l S 7
T h e action of the War Department General Staff was prompt
enough. Tentative approval having been given on 19 December 1933,
a $609,300 Air Corps budget for long-range bomber development was
approved “in principle” on 1 2 February 1934, and on 1 2 May the
Chief of Staff authorized the negotiation of contracts with the Boeing
and Martin companies for preliminary designs and engineering
65

About this file

Document, cited by the archive. The PDF is mirrored here; the original link is under it. 863 pages are in the text index: search them above, or from the library's search.