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. 2 THE UNIVERSITYOF CHICAGOPRESS, CHICAGO8 LONDON The University of Toronto Press, Toronto 5, Canada Copyright 1948 by…
  • p. 48 …An Associated Press dispatch of 10 October gave a contemporary judgment of the importance of this…
  • p. 55 …Air Service (Corps) found it difficult to press vigorously for reorgani- zation and, by default, leadership…
  • p. 56 …In 1919the W a r Department was pressing for a drastic revision of the military establishment…
  • p. 61 …It held that there was no danger of an air attack on the United States and…
  • p. 64 …GHQ Air Forcq a trial than to press for more radical measures, and Howell’s group…
  • p. 75 …Powerful air attacks resolutely pressed home could never be completely stopped, but their effects could best…
  • p. 98 …based air operations in defense of the United States and its overseas posses~ions.’~T w…
  • p. 99 …General Westover’s report concluded that “all Air Force units could be concentrated on either coast…
  • p. 130 …the Admiralty began to press for control of naval air units, while the army attempted to…
  • p. 149 …basic and advanced Responsibility for crew and unit train- ing was vested in the GHQ Air…
  • p. 164 …A m y air units in the Territory existed primarily for the defense of this and…
  • p. 176 …no military alliances were made which would commit the United States to war; the plans only…
  • p. 278 …There were also grounds for hoping that heavy bomber units now based on Darwin might increase…
  • p. 285 …From 1938 the United States had invoked sanctions against Japan in the form of moral em…
  • p. 287 …Over-all Strategy and lmmediate Deployment On 2 2 December, the press announced dramatically the arrival…
  • p. 289 …ground units sent in that direction were not destined for immediate combat. No major invasion of…
  • p. 323 …Seizure of bases in Canada or Mexico for later attacks on the United States. Capture of…
  • p. 366 …United state^,^ and the British them- selves were forced to withdraw some pilots from combat units…
  • p. 380 …Upon the request of the Ferrying Command, the State Depart- ment again pressed for an answer…
  • p. 397 …the summer and fall, first as the United States Middle East Air Force and later as…
  • p. 430 …Attempts had been made to replace these obsolete craft by purchase from the United States, but…
  • p. 440 …But as the Japanese pressed forward the Americans were given no opportunity to get set. The…
  • p. 463 …personnel that would be reassigned to infantry units whose rosters already included many representatives of the…
  • p. 552 …pines and more recently of American air units operating in the Netherlands East Indies, he was…
  • p. 560 …Moreover, examination proved that most of the basic equipment of the units, including badly needed trucks…
  • p. 563 …Grady arrived from the United States for a comprehensive survey of Indian resources with reference to…
  • p. 564 …TO C H I N A graphic units, and unfavorable atmospheric conditions combined to make high…
  • p. 607 …Thus the AAF units engaged in the anti-U-boat war became almost a t once…
  • p. 628 …Army air bombardment units would operate offensively in collaboration with the Royal Air Force, primarily against…
  • p. 658 …was to operate in the United Kingdom.14' All air units initially based there were to…
  • p. 683 …of the units of the infant Eighth until their departure for the United Kingdom several months…
  • p. 691 …The RAF proposed that American fighter units be integrated with its own under a plan eventually…
  • p. 748 …533.) By 1928he was (Patrick, United States in the Air, pp. 190-91.) 38. Charges of…
  • p. 770 …y.W D Press Release, 2 1 June 1941. 9 1 . AR 95-5, 3a. 92…
  • p. 857 …Presque Isle, 344, 347-49, 641, 644-45 Press comment: B-17, 662-63; danger of…
T H E B A T T L E O F T H E A T L A N T I C
land-based bombers might well be the principal arm employed.
Furthermore, since most situations in which the Navy would be
called upon for coastal defense operations would be ones in which
the GHQ Air Force would also be involved as a striking force, the
Navy would, according to its own argument, gain control of Army
air forces in any tactical situation then considered likely to develop.
This, the Army felt, might lead ultimately to Navy control of all air
forces. As late as December 1941the problem was still under debate;
but unity of command in defense of the eastern coast, as far as
joint air action was concerned, for practical purposes was vested
in the commander of the North Atlantic Naval Coastal Frontier
(NANCF) .*
The Navy, then, at the outbreak of war was responsible for the
protection of coastwise shipping and for the conduct of offshore
patrol. In other words, the responsibility for the development of anti-
submarine defenses lay with the Navy. The Army air arm, on the
other hand, was obliged to act in support of or in lieu of naval forces
should it be called upon to do so, that is to say, it had an emergency
responsibility. In addition, Joint Action had explicitly stated that,
regardless of the presence or absence of the fleet, the GHQ Air Force
retained the responsibility for reconnaissance essential to its own com-
bat efficiency as a striking force. Prior to 1939, however, Army avia-
tion had been restricted from proceeding more than I O O miles beyond
the shore line. There remains some question regarding the precise
origin of this restriction, but the evidence indicates that it came
initially from the Navy and was imposed in accordance with an
agreement between the Chief of Naval Operations and the Chief
of Staff, U.S. Army. Joint exercises held in 1939 for the purpose of
Army-Navy training had occasioned a strong protest on the part of
the Army air commanders concerned, who argued that it was impos-
sible to maintain the navigational efficiency of their units without
flights beyond the Ioo-mile limit. It was accordingly agreed that
longer flights might be undertaken provided special arrangements
were in each instance made “well in advance.” Not only was this an
administratively awkward arrangement calculated to discourage the
development of any extensive training program, but the Air Corps
thereafter became increasingly preoccupied with the many-sided
problems of a gigantic program of expansion centering on the mission
of strategic bombardment. December 1941 thus found those AAF
5 2 ’

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.