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
activities, they would have to be provided for the purpose of counter-
ing the U-boat threat in whatever quantity considered feasible in
the light of other commitments.
Such being the case, the Air Staff preferred to retain possession
of the antisubmarine bomber forces to be made available and to
employ them in accordance with the Army responsibility set forth
in Joint Action for operations “in support of or in lieu of naval
forces.” In that way, it was felt, a serious duplication of equipment,
maintenance, and supply would be avoided, which otherwise would
eventually “deny the essential difference between armies and
navies.” 5 6 The question of duplication was all the more serious because
it was evident that the bombers requested were not to be employed
exclusively for antisubmarine operations in the Atlanti~.~’In other
words, the implications of the proposed transfer were far reaching in
their effect on the fundamental question of control of land-based
aviation engaged in seaward operation^.^^
General Arnold proposed, therefore, as a solution of the problem
of providing additional forces for antisubmarine warfare a compro-
mise which would retain the principle of ultimate responsibility as
set forth in Joint Action and which enjoyed the support of precedent.
In a letter of 9 March 1942 to Admiral King, he proposed “the estab-
lishment of a Coastal Command, within the Army Air Corps, which
will have for its purpose operations similar to the Coastal Command,
Royal Air Force,” operating “when necessary” under the control of
proper naval authorities. The advantages of such an organization, he
felt, would be compelling. It would be uniquely trained and equipped
for the job. It would also possess the flexibility necessary for anti-
submarine action, and could readily be reduced in strength as the
need decreased, the units then simply reverting to normal bombard-
ment duty without becoming stranded wastefully in a naval program
which presumably would then have no place for them.59 This pro-
posal of General Arnold’s sounded the keynote for AAF policy in
the negotiations which culminated in the creation of the AAF Anti-
submarine Command.
It also reflected the profound influence exerted by the RAF
Coastal Command on AAF thinking. That the Coastal Command
should provide something of a blueprint for a similar organization
in the United States was very natural, for it had pioneered in anti-
submarine warfare under circumstances roughly analogous to those
540

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.