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
the British and French war missions to Washington, before any deci-
sion had been made as to what the American war contribution should
be. Few in the United States as yet envisaged an expeditionary force
of millions of men, and it is possible that the French, gauging the
public attitude shrewdly, thought it easier to sell the idea of a war of
machine^.^ Certainly the deployment in France of a force of 4,500
combat planes would have entailed a more lavish use of aviation than
had yet been employed in the close support of ground armies.
The new program, which immediately supplanted earlier modest
estimates, called for an appropriation of $640,000,000.The necessary
legislation was pushed rapidly through Congress in the Aviation Act
of 24 July 1917. The bill was passed without roll call-also without
concurrence by the Army’s General Staff, having been borne on a
wave of public enthusiasm engendered by a high-powered publicity
campaign. Slogans such as the “cloud of planes” and the “million roads
to Berlin” became in anticipation concrete realities. Inspired news
stories and editorials played on the speed and economy of life with
which aviation could turn the scales against Germany; the capacity
of America to fulfil the production, training, and tactical requirements
was seldom doubted.“ As the New York Times put it editorially: “By
no other means can we so quickly or so surely render valuable aid to
our allies. . . . Airplanes can be rapidly built. . . . Money is all that is
lacking.” A few experts thought differently, though rarely for pub-
lication: that “no amount of money will buy time. Even the most
generous preparations do not open up the years that have passed and
enable us to carefully lay the foundations of a great industry and a
great aerial army.” Experience was to show the wisdom of this view.
Of all the requisites for air power, we had only raw materials, man-
power, and enthusiasm. W e had, literally speaking, no air force. Hav-
ing invented the airplane, we had left to others its development and
adaptation to military use. The Army had acquired its first plane in
1909; its first special appropriation for aviation, a sum of $125,000,in
19x1.‘ Shortly before the European war began, we had stood four-
teenth in total funds appropriated-well below Greece and Bulgaria.8
In spite of the great development of aviation by European belligerents
and of our own tactical experiences in Mexico, the Army from 1909
to April 1917 had been able to acquire only 224 aircraft.’ Not one of
these was, by European standards, a combat model; few were still in
commission. At TWO flying fields operated by the Army there were,
6

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.