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. 14 …with the commanding general, who in some instances moved in advance of promptings from Wash- ington…
  • p. 25 …EASTERNAND WESTERNAPPROACHESTO PANAMACANAL ALASKAAND THE ALEUTIANISLANDS PRINCIPALSEAAND AIR ROUTESAS DESIGNATEDBY WASH- ATLANTICFERRYINGAND TRANSPORTROUTESPRIORTO . . . . . . . . . . 297 30' 305…
  • p. 229 …the importance of the Far East Air Force in American strategy, the Air Staff in Wash…
  • p. 292 …Even so, there was in Wash- ington too little intelligence concerning the fluid tactical situation to…
  • p. 302 …The suggestion had been carried out in 1941 with the establishment of the U.S. Special…
  • p. 306 …work permanently with the British Joint Intelligence Committee in Wash- ington. The Combined Military Transportation Committee…
  • p. 389 …to delay the take-off was granted only after an appeal to Wash- ington.’O 3…
  • p. 442 …the time and attention of U.S. officers at Brisbane and of headquarters in Wash- ington…
  • p. 443 …Accidents delayed three planes en route, and one of the P-40’s was completely “washed…
  • p. 454 …promise of weakening the enemy. Attention already had been given in Wash- ington to establishment of…
  • p. 554 …In China, he found the procurement of necessary equipment, even be- fore the outbreak of war…
  • p. 636 …After further negotiations in Wash- ington, the Arnold-Towers-Portal agreement was adopted on z I…
  • p. 693 …Accordingly, Wash- ington was requested to send immediately 50 intelligence officers for training by the RAF…
  • p. 747 …before the Committee on Military Af- fairs, House of Representatives (Wash- 23. See, for instance, William…
  • p. 772 …The exact date of the arrival of air units is not known, as the latter source…
  • p. 799 …The road from Haiphong, Indo- China, to Yunnan was closed by the Vichy government in 1940…
  • p. 814 …Overseas (Ferrying), Air Min- istry, Memorandum on the Movement by Air of US. Forces to the…
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
Employment of the GHQ Air Force,” a document incorporated in its
essentials in the revision of Joint Action the following year, the
baffling perplexities of pre-193 I policy regarding the role of aircraft
in coastal defense had been in large part restored.lS4The GHQ Air
Force as the principal element of the Army air component would
operate “as an arm of the mobile Army, both in the conduct of air
operations over the land in support of land operations and in the con-
duct of air operations over the sea in direct defense of the coast.”
When operating along the coast, it would maintain “such reconnais-
sance as is essential to its combat efficiency.” But, in the absence of the
fleet, primary responsibility for information of hostile fleet move-
ments rested with “naval district forces supplemented by Army Air
Corps units.” The three-phase activity of Army aviation against an
enemy attack outlined in General MacArthur’s instructions of 3
January 1933+ was once again described, and in language much the
same, but the need for such activity was now recognized, by implica-
tion a t least, only in the absence of sufficient naval forces to engage the
enemy a t sea. These and other points which might be mentioned are
finely drawn and somewhat legalistic, but just there lay the trouble.
Once again there was ample room for debate.t
When the B-17 was delivered in 1937, it was enthusiastically
received by the GHQ Air Force as “the best bombardment aircraft in
existence, particularly for coastal defense.” l Q 5 But under existing cir-
cumstances it proved far from easy to win recognition of the need for
such a plane in coastal defense, and under existing national policy it
was difficult to find any other justification for the long-range bomber
than its capacity to contribute to the defense of our own coasts.
“Airplanes could be built to fly across the Atlantic with a load of
bombs and return, and the B-17 right now could make a one way trip
and reinforce allies in Europe,” wrote the Commanding General of
the GHQ Air Force in November 1937. “With landing fields at Wake
and Guam,” he continued, “it could fly to the Philippines and Asia.
However, our National Policy is defensive, and we do not now con-
+ See above, p. 63.
t A section of Joint Action designed to minimize duplication between the services
charged the Army with provision of aircraft for use in support of military operations,
in direct defense of the coast, in repelling air raids against shore objectives or shi ping
operations from aircraft carriers or other vessels and shore-based lanes for observa-
zones.
in harbors, and in support of naval forces. The Navy would provide aircraPt for
don, scouting, and patrolling over the sea and for the protection oPshipping in coastal
68

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.