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 F O R C E S I N W O R L D W A R I 1
data.lss Military characteristics for the new 5,000-mile-range bomber,
approved by the General Staff on 16 May 1934, were adjusted to a
tactical mission for “the destruction by bombs of distant land or naval
targets” and a purpose “to reinforce Hawaii, Panama, and Alaska
without the use of intermediate servicing facilities.” June 1934 saw
completion of the preliminary contracts with the Boeing Aircraft
Company, and a year later a contract was closed for the purchase of
one XB-IS, as the projected plane had now come to be designated.lso
The plane itself was not completed until the fall of 1937, and subse-
quent tests proved that its size and weight had been conceived on a
scale too ambitious for the power plants then available. But Project A
became the parent, too, of the B-17, the B-24, and the B-29, to mention
only those heavies which carried the weight of the bombing attack on
Germany and Japan in World War 11,
The B-17 grew out of proposals distributed in 1933 among manu-
facturers for a design competition in the following year. These
proposals specified a multi-engine bomber, and all save one of the
competitors apparently assumed that the Air Corps sought only a
superior twin-engine plane. Boeing, however, undertook to develop
a four-engine bomber of revolutionary design. In July 193 5 the XB- I 7
underwent successfully its first test flight. The following month it
flew nonstop a t an average speed of 2 3 2 miles per hour from the Boe-
ing plant in Seattle to Dayton-a distance of 2,100 miles. Unfor-
tunately, the original model crashed and burned on 3 0 October 1935,
after completion of all detailed engineering inspection and study of
performance data, but before a formal evaluation board had met.lsl
Pending the final action of an evaluation board, the Air Corps had
already recommended the purchase of 65 B-17’~in place of 185 other
aircraft previously authorized for the fiscal year 1936. But destruction
of the original model, though investigation cleared the plane of
mechanical fault, was followed by a reduction by the War Depart-
ment of the figure from 65 to I 3 . In fulfilment of a contract closed on
17 January 1936, the first of the 1 3 B-17’s was delivered in January
1937, and by August of that year the full number had been deliv-
ered.lsz
The reader perhaps will have noticed the coincidence of key dates
in the origin of the heavy bomber program with other major develop-
ments affecting the role of the Air Corps in national defense. The
report of the Drum Board, with its recommendation of a GHQ air
66

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.