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. 537 …of Air Staff, Plans, Col. Orvil A. Anderson, had in preparation a study of the possibility…
  • p. 757 …Cole O d l e Anderson, CaPt. Ball, Capt. Moss, and himself. The im- portance of…
  • p. 770 …AFSHO files. 9. Lt. Col. O.A. Anderson, AWPD, Air Forces Estimate of the Situation, 1…
  • p. 797 …for C/AS from Col. O.A. Anderson, AC/AS, Plans, 25 June 1942. General Marshall…
  • p. 812 …for Col. George from Maj. S.E. Anderson, Research Regarding Bomber-Fighter Combats in Europe, 1…
  • p. 818 …AC/S, OPD from Col. O.A. Anderson, 10 July 1942. 197. Key Plan for the…
  • p. 840 …5 1 2 Andaman Is., 500, 503 Anderson, Col. 0. A., 472 Andes, 639 Andres, Pvt…
T H E P R O B L E M O F N E W G U I N E A
at Lae, Salamaua, and Rabaul. Presumably, the best-equipped plane at
the disposal of the Allied Air Forces for this purpose was the A-24,
but its range did not carry to the main routes of enemy shipping at
this time. T h e B- I 7 had the range, but the normal priority assigned to
counterair operations and the special priority given to reconnaissance
left few planes for the purpose. Moreover, pilots trained in high-level
bombardment showed no inclination to experiment with low-level
attacks. In anticipation of an expected need, a detachment of the
L zd Group went through some training with especially equipped
B-26's in torpedo-dropping, but they never would be put into
All told, the record was spotty, but there was much to support
General Arnold's contention during the summer and fall that, given
a complete build-up of the assigned forces, the Pacific commands
possessed enough air strength to hold the Certainly, the
Allied Air Forces was holding its own; at no time since April had
the Japanese enjoyed numerical superiority, and this despite depart-
ure of some AAF units to strengthen the South Pacific. From April
to mid-July, American units lost in combat sixty-one fighters and
twenty-two bombers, an additional ten bombers and one fighter on
the ground to enemy action, and the depressing total of fifty-four
fighters and twenty-three bombers to accidents. During the same
period, claims were made for more than eighty Japanese planes shot
down; others were destroyed on the ground, and there is reason to
believe that unrecorded planes were lost as a result of combat damage
on the way back to their bases. It also seems to be a reasonable
assumption that operational losses were high."j A discouraging factor
to American airmen in the Southwest Pacific was the delay in the
arrival of reinforcements and replacements. Here the enemy, with
interior lines of communications, presumably had the advantage. T h e
arrival of American fighters and short-range bombers depended on
the critical item of shipping, and even the bombers arriving by the
ferry route came in more slowly than had been expected. There was
cause for foreboding in figures which showed that during May and
June 106 fighters and 42 bombers had been lost, while gains listed
no fighters and only sixty-two But American production
was now reaching a point that soon would permit it to provide the
remedy.
Another cause for concern was the unsatisfactory state of morale.
48 1

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.