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…
D E P L O Y M E N T O N T H E E V E O F H O S T I L I T I E S
arrival. Members of the Hawaiian Air Force, who had never flown
heavy bombers, began to receive intensive instructions from fifteen
crew members who had made the flight, while the remainder of the
I 9th Bombardment Group sailed back to the mainland.63
The allocation of a greater number of heavy bombers to the
Hawaiian Air Force than to any other overseas garrison in the spring
of 1941was an indication of a growing concern over the possibility
of war in the Pacific. It was also a testimony to the importance of
Hawaiian defense, an importance which stemmed both from the exist-
ence of Pearl Harbor naval base on Oahu and from the position of
the Hawaiian Islands in continental and hemisphere defense. The
duties of Army and Navy forces protecting the islands had been
clearly defined in joint defense plans. The principal joint task assigned
to forces permanently based in the territory was “to hold Oahu as a
main outlying naval base.” 6 4 In accordance with standard procedures
established for American forces on the continent and overseas, the
Army was to provide the mobile land and air forces required for
direct defense of the island coast lines against attack, while the Navy
was to conduct operations directed toward defeat of an enemy force
in the vicinity of the coast and to support the Army in repelling
attacks on coastal objectives. T o accomplish its mission the Navy was
charged with the provision and operation of “a system of offshore
scouting and patrol to give timely warning of an attack and, in addi-
tion, forces to operate against enemy forces in the vicinity of the
coast.” 6 5 It thus became the responsibility of the Navy to maintain
the long-range reconnaissance that would be required for advance
notice of an approaching enemy, but to the Army fell the operation
of an air warning system that would promptly alert all defense forces
against specific attacks by air. Since such a division of responsibility
called for close co-operation between the services, Army and Navy
commanders in Hawaii had agreed that if the threat of a hostile attack
were sufficiently imminent to warrant joint action, each commander
would “take such preliminary steps as are necessary to make available
without delay to the other commander such proportion of the air
forces a t his disposal as the circumstances warrant.” ”
These arrangements, it can easily be seen, were more theoretical
than practical, more general than specific. The need for a thorough
reconsideration of Hawaiian air defense led the W a r Department
General Staff in July 1941 to order that the AAF make a study of
‘ 7 3

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.