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
for an eventual land offensive against Germany; and capture of posi-
tions from which eventually the offensive could be launched.
The mission of the several services was described in most general
terms. In respect to aviation, it would be the policy of the associated
powers to achieve as rapidly as possible “superiority of air strength
over that of the enemy, particularly in long-range striking forces.”
The Air Corps was to support ground and naval forces in defense of
the Western Hemisphere and of U.S. overseas possessions and bases,
and in operations in the Atlantic area. Of special significance, “U.S.
Army air bombardment units [would] operate offensively in collabo-
ration with the Royal Air Force, primarily against German Military
Power at its source.’’
T o insure sound direction of the united effort, two principles of
command were accepted: unity of command within each theater and
integrity of national forces. The danger zones of the worId were
divided into “areas” and the United States or Britain was charged with
the strategic direction of all forces of the associated powers operating
within each of those areas. Forces of either power operating under
strategic direction of the other were not to be distributed in detail
or attached to the ally’s units, but were normally to function as
organized task forces performing specific missions. In joint tactical
operations, that officer of either power who was senior in rank or
grade would command.
The allocation of areas of responsibility was dictated largely by
the predominant interests of the respective powers-that is, the eastern
Atlantic, the Mediterranean, and Near East areas went to the British,
the western Atlantic and the Pacific to the United States. Arrange-
ments for the Far East, in which the United States, Great Britain,
and the Netherlands each had vital interests, did not conform to this
general pattern. There, command of naval forces was divided between
the commanders in chief of the British China Fleet and the U.S.
Asiatic Fleet; army ground and air forces in each territory were to
operate under their own commanders, with such co-ordination as
might be effected in the theater.
An annex to the report’” listed, by areas, the forces to be made
available for deployment by both powers and the general mission
therein of each of the services. Deployment estimates were not uni-
formly precise, being usually based on calculated strengths as of I
April 1941, but in some cases being projected into the future. Air
1 3 8

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.