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 I R C O R P S P R E P A R E S F O R W A R , 1 9 3 9 - 4 1
press for such rights from Costa Rica or Ecuador, and there was no
westward extension of canal defenses until 1 9 4 2 . ~ ~
Farther west, the exposed position of our Pacific islands made im-
provement of their defense seem more urgent. It had long been con-
sidered axiomatic among our military leaders that the Philippines could
not be profitably defended, with the forces likely to be available for
use, against a determined Japanese attack. In I 94 I , however, measures
were taken to strengthen our forces there, particularly in air cate-
gories: a strong bombardment force would threaten the left flank of a
southward drive by the Japanese and hence might serve as a powerful
deterrent. Accordingly, in I 94 I there was an extension of air installa-
tions on Luzon and Mindanao and, belatedly, an effort to reinforce
air units stationed there.79
T h e key to our Pacific defenses was the Hawaiian Islands, or more
specifically, the naval base at Pearl Harbor. A m y air units in the
Territory existed primarily for the defense of this and other naval and
military installations on Oahu, and in the past had been concentrated
on that island. From 1939on, the Air Corps was attempting to increase
the range of the striking force which constituted its chief weapon. By
1941,auxiliary fields were set up in other islands of the group through
the aid of the CAA. This policy was carried further by the preparation
of landing strips on such far-flung islands as Midway, Johnston, Pal-
myra, Canton, and Christmas.80 While facilities at those locations
would support only limited operations and were not intended as
permanent bases for heavy bombers, the new airfields were indicative
of the gradual acceptance of AAF concepts of mobility and a posi-
tive defense; their most obvious utility lay in the fact that, with tran-
sit rights assured by the Australian government, they constituted a
means whereby heavy bombers could be ferried from the States, via
Hawaii, to Luzon. Local defense measures on Luzon and Oahu
included the reinforcement of fighter units there and the establishment
of fighter control sectors with radar warning equipment. These meas-
ures, like all others on those islands, proved inadequate against the
Japanese surprise attacks, but the advanced island airstrips were to be
of signal importance in the Pacific war.
Reinforcement of the northern corner of the Alaska-Hawaii-
Panama triangle also came relatively late. Since the 1920’s the Air
Corps had been calling attention to the strategic importance of Alaska
and to its vulnerability. In 1935, construction of an air base there had
1 2 5

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.