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 TWO WARS
sider such possibilities."'s" And yet, in the very year that saw the
beginning of another major European war, the Air Corps was engaged
in an attempt to secure relief from a prohibition which limited the
flight of its planes seaward to IOO miles beyond the ~ h o r e . ~ "That this
limitation apparently had been imposed by a verbal agreement between
the Chief of Naval Operations and the Chief of Staff is suggestive of
certain complications over the bomber program that had entered into
the relations of the Air Corps and the General Staff.
The War Department had given its approval to an experimental
interest in the long-range bomber as early as 1934. It had supported
the action leading to the development of the B-17, and though the
decision to limit the initial procurement to thirteen planes had proved
disappointing to the Air Corps, that decision nevertheless had main-
tained the project on a hopeful experimental basis. Further encourage-
ment came from W a r Department approval of a contract of 3 I Octo-
ber 1935 with the Douglas Aircraft Company for the design of an
experimental bomber even larger than the B- I 5 . The contract carried
an option for subsequent purchase of a prototype, and under an
authorization of 29 September 1936 that option was exercised through
a contract for the building of one experimental model.'08 Completed
in the spring of I 94 I and test-flown for the first time on 2 7 June I 941,
the Douglas XB- 19, with a span of 2 I 2 feet, a weight of 84,43 I pounds,
and a range of 5,200 miles, was the Army's largest prewar bomber.lgg
Tests proved that there were no fundamental flaws of design or
structure, but, as in the case of the B-15, the size and weight of the
plane were too great for the power plants. Consequently, the later
B-29, though it mounted engines more powerful than those of the
XB-19, was designed as a smaller plane. Only one experimental model
of the B-19 was built, but that paid more than ample dividends in the
lessons applied to future bomber development within the AAF.
The record shows, then, that within the four years following the
inauguration of Project A three major experimental projects had been
authorized for the purpose of exploring the potentialities of the big
plane and the long-range bomber. From the Air Corps point of view
the difficulty lay in the subsequent disinclination of the General Staff
to authorize the procurement of long-range bombers for equipment
of the GHQ Air Force. Though twenty-nine B-17's had been included
in the 1938 procurement program and eleven more for 1939, when
Germany attacked Poland in September of that year, only fourteen
69

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.