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 I
Montgomery, proceeded toward the enemy beachhead a t Vigan.
O’Donnell, first to arrive over the target area, made several runs at
2 5 , 0 0 0 feet against what was mistakenly thought to be an aircraft
carrier. Mechanical trouble with the bomb racks as well as antiaircraft
fire interfered with the bombing, and it took approximately forty-five
minutes to drop eight 600-lb. bombs. No hits were observed. Parse1
had better success. He made two bomb runs from 12,500 feet. On the
first, four 300-lb. bombs were directed against a cruiser or destroyer
without effect, but of the three bombs dropped during the second run,
a t least one direct hit on a transport was claimed. Montgomery had
been allowed time to load only one 600-lb. bomb when he was ordered
off Clark Field for the security of his plane. He proceeded to Vigan,
however, and dropped his bomb in the water near the t r a n s p o r t ~ . ~ ~
The two remaining B-17’s took off from Clark Field at approximately
0930 to attack Japanese landing craft, transports, and their naval escort
near Aparri. Lt. G.E. Schaetzel, pilot of one of the planes, in making
a run over several transports at 2 5 , 0 0 0 feet, apparently scored a hit.
The B-17, pounded by antiaircraft fire and under attack by enemy
pursuit, was severely damaged, but no one in the bomber was injured
and Schaetzel succeeded in reaching San Marcelino.64
Capt. Colin Kelly in the fifth bomber had been directed to locate
and if possible sink an aircraft carrier previously reported along the
northern Luzon coast. After a search of the target area he found no
sign of a carrier, but Lt. Joe M. Bean, his navigator, had spotted a large
Japanese warship which the aircrew took for a battles hi^.^^ Indeed,
early reports of the ensuing action placed the ship in either the Harzlrna
or the Yawisbiro class.66Actually, it is now known that no Japanese
battleship participated in the initial invasion of the Philippines, and
that the Haruna, the favored choice in subsequent reports, was
engaged until I 8 December in support of the Malayan campaign. Since
training in identification of naval craft was imperfect and many Japa-
nese cruisers were as long or longer than some American battleships,
it is not surprising that such mistakes of identification were made, even
by the presumably better-trained Navy air personnel. At any rate,
Navy PBY’s claimed on the following day to have hit a ship of the
H a m a class in this same general area. Japanese sources indicate that
the ship picked out by Lieutenant Bean was in fact the heavy cruiser
Ashigara, flagship of the Third Fleet in its current operation.6T
As it moved slowly on the outskirts of the enemy convoy it made a
2 16

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.