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. 28 …PARNAMIRIMFIELD,NATAL,BRAZIL,JUNE1942 . . . BLUIE WEST I , JUNE 1942 . . . . . . . . . . REYKJAVIKAIRFIELD,ICELAND,APRILI 942 . . . . . . THENIGHTSHIFT,PATTERSONFIELD,ICELAND…
  • p. 157 …Brazil offered a likely avenue of approach. Natal, a focal point for established trans-Atlantic air…
  • p. 371 …Pivoting at Natal, it had to traverse an additional 6,000 miles in order to reach…
  • p. 375 …Panair do Brasil, a Pan American subsidiary, had undertaken at Belem and Natal the development with…
  • p. 376 …From Belem, the ten transports proceeded to Natal and thence across the Atlantic to Bathurst. All…
  • p. 378 …Miami-San Juan (Puerto Rico) -Port of Spain (Trinidad) - Belem-Natal-Fisherman’s Lake (Liberia) -Lagos…
  • p. 384 ATKINSON FIELD, BRITISH GUIANA, JUNE 1942 PARNAMIRIM FIELD, NATAL, BRAZIL, JUNE 1942
  • p. 385 …The two bases a t Belem and Natal, built with airport development program funds by the…
  • p. 386 …The most feasible route was determined to be from Natal to Ascension Island to Pointe Noire…
  • p. 388 …Tampa-Trinidad- Belem-Natal-Accra-Khartoum-Cairo-Habbaniya-Karachi.At Karachi the LB-3o’s under…
  • p. 413 …In order to avoid piling up a heavy backlog of cargo and passengers at Natal, it…
  • p. 414 …L D W A R I 1 Natal toward the end of June, at which time…
  • p. 854 …78 Narsarssuak, 157, 343, 641 Nassau, 355 Natal, 120, 319, 321-22, 324, 3 2 ~ 3…
T H E B A T T L E O F T H E A T L A N T I C
mobility comparable to that enjoyed by the U-boat command itself.'
But all such efforts foundered on the rocks of interservice contro-
versy. The story of the antisubmarine air effort becomes, therefore,
in no small part a story of jurisdictional and doctrinal debate punc-
tuated by a series of compromises ending in a final compromise by
which AAF forces withdrew from antisubmarine operations on the
understanding that the Navy would relinquish all claim to control of
long-range air striking forces operating from land bases.
It is not the purpose of this chapter to provide a full narrative
of AAF antisubmarine activity. The bulk of that story falls chrono-
logically outside the limits of this volume. It is necessary here, how-
ever, to consider the emergency problem which confronted the AAF
on the outbreak of hostilities and the developments which led to the
creation of the Army Air Forces Antisubmarine Command in Oc-
tober 1942. The operations of that command and the controversy
which overshadowed its brief existence-extending from the fall of
1942 through the summer of 1943--will receive separate treatment in
the following volume.
T h e Question of Responsibility
Since the early development of military aviation in the United
States, the Army and the Navy had differed on certain points regard-
ing its control. With regard to land-based aviation engaged in sea-
ward patrol, each service took a logical enough position. T o the
Army, land-based aircraft whether operating over land or water
should be its responsibility. T o the Navy, it seemed equally natural
that operations over water against seaborne targets should be a naval
responsibility. But since the air constituted a medium which extended
over both land and water, arguments concerning its control could
drift more or less a t will for so long a time as national policy insisted
on regarding the air arm as subordinate to either the Army or the
Navy. It thus became a question that would have to be answered
arbitrarily by some competent authority.
As early as 1920 it had been recognized that, in providing an air
arm for both services, there lay a serious danger of duplicating instal-
lations and equipment. In that year Congress, accordingly, had deter-
mined that the Army air arm should have responsibility for all aerial
operations from land bases and that to naval aviation belonged all air
activity attached to the fleet, including the maintenance of such shore
5'9

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.