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 B A T T L E O F T H E A T L A N T I C
in which the American forces found themselves fighting in 1942.
The British had solved the problem of co-ordinating the activities
of land-based aviation with those of the Royal Navy and the Fleet
Air Arm by creating a special RAF command, equipped and trained
for sea search and attack and placed for purposes of operational
control under the Admiralty. Details of this arrangement had been
made available to interested headquarters in Washington by the British
officers detailed to advise the American antisubmarine forces. Ad-
mittedly far from perfect, the system they described bore the author-
ity of more than two years' experience in joint action, experience
marked by close and effective co-operation between the services.
The Admiralty set forth the general pattern of antisubmarine oper-
ations and left it to Coastal Command to direct the activities of its
own units within that over-all strategic pattern. Sea and air officers
in charge of operations worked in the same quarters from identical
intelligence data presented on the same plotting charts. Interchange
of information thus became virtually automatic." 'O
N o immediate results followed General Arnold's proposal. By May,
however, the submarine situation itself pointed more imperatively
than words to the need for some change in the existing system of
control. Most of the May sinkings had occurred in the Gulf and
Caribbean areas. Scarcely adequate to protect shipping in the Eastern
Sea Frontier, the existing organization of antisubmarine operations
proved powerless to cope with a greatly extended area of activity.
Above all, there was the ugly fact that during that month sinkings in
both these sea frontiers had risen to an alarming figure. Despite ener-
getic efforts on the part of both Navy and AAF agencies to meet a
rapidly changing situation with machinery constructed essentially
on static principles, the extension of AAF antisubmarine operations
merely emphasized the faults inherent in the existing system of com-
mand and control.
The agreement reached late in March had placed unity of command
over all air forces operating over the sea in the coastal defense areas
in the hands of the sea frontier commanders. This seemed a con-
venient enough arrangement for the time being, but in reality it
merely made more definite what had hitherto been left vague. It did
* The contrast between this concept of operational control and that followed by
the US.Navy should be noted. The US.Navy preferred to exercise more detailed
supervision of the operations of Army units assigned to its control through such
lower echelons of command as the sea frontier and the naval district.
541

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.