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
to meet the requirements set by standard AAF doctrine." Thus, the
number of aircraft available fell far below the minimum demanded in
order to achieve a profitable pattern for attaining hits upon even one
carrier maneuvering at high speed, causing air commanders to feel that
severe criticism of the B-17 performance was not altogether justified,
for Midway was not a test of the bomber. They noted that the AAF
had played no part in planning the defense of Midway, nor had it
retained operational control of the few planes actually sent up to the
island outpost; they noted, too, that critiques of the battle had indi-
cated a tendency to rush the attacks upon the carriers at long ranges
without adequate planning for co-ordination, with the result that the
torpedo squadrons had suffered disastrous losses. Even General Hale
had no advance knowledge of the composition of the enemy surface
forces his bombers would face.'"
One of the most serious handicaps was the lack of adequate servicing
facilities or personnel on Midway, where the combat crews not only
flew long, exhausting, daily missions but to a large extent were forced
to do their own servicing and maintenance. Destruction of the power-
house on Eastern Island by enemy bombing on 4 June further compli-
cated this situation, completely disrupting the only available refueling
system, thereby making it necessary for the tired crews to spend long
hours servicing their planes from cans and drums, although in this task
they were aided by Marine ground troops on the i~1and.l'~A further
factor was the rapid exhaustion of the crews of the combat planes in
long I ,800-mile reconnaissance missions prior to combat; General Hale
had protested in vain against the practice of sending out his B - 1 7 ' S
against unknown targets, but he was overruled despite the fact that
prior to the search mission of I June, his crews had not enjoyed seven
hours' sleep in two days.lo4
A complete assessment of their achievements is not possible, but
certainly the above factors contributed to the sharp downward revi-
sion of claims necessitated by Japanese reports. It is probable that one
hit was obtained in the initial attack of 3 June upon the transports; for
* It is of interest to note that immediately prior to the Battle of Midway, Maj. Gen.
Robert C. Richardson reported 'from Hawii that a force of no less than 90 to IOO
heavy bombers would be necessary to assure the probabilit of 7 per cent hits on an
enemy force of five carriers. He based this figure on earlier xornbing experience which
indicated that even from the relatively low altitudes of IZ,OOO to 14,000 feet, at least
eighteen to twenty planes would be required to insure 7 per cent hits on a single
maneuvering surface craft. (Report from Maj. Gen. Robert C. Richardson to Chief
of Staff, I June 1942.)
460

About this file

Document, cited by the archive. The PDF is mirrored here; the original link is above. 863 pages are in the text index: search them above, or from the library's search.