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
Genesis of the Army Air Forces Antisubmarine Conmaand
Meanwhile, the American high command was struggling with the
more fundamental problems of antisubmarine policy. As has already
been noted in this volume and will be noticed repeatedly hereafter,
the question of shipping proved again and again the most crucial of
those faced in attempts to meet the demands of our hard pressed
forces in the Pacific and to provide for an early assumption of the
offensive against Germany. And so threatening to the basic strategy
agreed upon for the conduct of the war was the submarine attack
that no possibility of taking effective action against it could be over-
looked.
T w o things the submarine crisis had immediately made clear: an
effective antisubmarine campaign would require more aircraft than
could be supplied from current production designed for Navy use,
especially in view of the many demands on naval air strength; and
a large proportion of the necessary aircraft would have to consist
of land-based types, admittedly better suited, because of their speed,
range, and firepower, for antisubmarine attack than the seaplane.”
It was soon evident, too, that these requirements could be met either
by turning over to the Navy a force of Army land-based bombers
sufficient to allow that service to accomplish the task by itself, or by
setting up a separate command within the AAF to be specially trained
and equipped for antisubmarine warfare and with that as its sole
duty. Thus the AAF units engaged in the anti-U-boat war became
almost a t once the subject of a jurisdictional controversy.
The issue first arose in acute form when the Navy acted early
in 1942 to secure a force of land-based bombers for its own use.
O n 1 5 January, the Air Staff had under consideration a request from
Rear Adm. John H. Towers, chief of the Bureau of Aeronautics,
for the transfer to the Navy from future production of Army-type
* O n 5 March 1942, Admiral King wrote to General Arnold as follows: “The
experience of the last two winters has demonstrated that naval aviation missions such
as convoy escort, observation, scouting and patrolling over the sea, and the pro-
tection of shipping in the coastal zones, cannot be accomplished by seaplanes based
on ice-bound bases in the North Atlantic and Pacific areas. In addition to this ex-
perience, a study of the purely naval operations of the Coastal Command of the
Royal Air Force has led to the conviction that for such missions, carried out from
prepared fixed bases, multi-engined landplanes have certain characteristic advantages
in increased range, ease of maintenance, and facility of operation, over seaplanes.”
The Navy’s carrier-based planes which lent important weight to the antisubmarine
war in its later phase were not employed in the Atlantic until March 1943.
538

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.