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
nothing to meet the problem of deploying land-based aviation effec-
tively in antisubmarine warfare. The trouble was that no single com-
mand, either in the Navy or Army, was solely responsible for the
conduct of the antisubmarine war. The result was that a multiplicity
of regional headquarters within a system constructed originally to
meet the needs of a static defense robbed the air arm of what the
AAF considered its primary advantage, namely its mobility as an
offensive striking force.
Most AAF units engaged in the campaign served under the opera-
tional control of the I Bomber Command, which remained the only
organization capable of co-ordinating such an enterprise. But the
I Bomber Command was still theoretically a bombardment force, and
as long as it retained a dual responsibility its training and tactical
development had literally to be carried on at two levels-for high-
level bombardment and for low-level attack against submarines. This
situation prevented it from concentrating as fully on the anti-U-boat
war as the nature of that conflict required. The system over which
it presided was, moreover, loosely integrated. The Civil Air Patrol
served under the I Air Support Command for operational control.
I Air Support Command, in turn, operated under the control of
I Bomber Command. Units of the Third Air Force, brought in as
an emergency measure t o meet the crisis in the Gulf area in May,
operated under the control of the Gulf Task Force of the I Bomber
Command. And this system, such as it was, as yet did not extend to
the Caribbean, where the Antilles Air Task Force operated inde-
pendently under the Caribbean Sea Frontier. Administratively speak-
ing, the situation was even more complicated because all units were
administered through either the First Air Force or the Third Air
Force, both of which had to go through their respective defense com-
mand headquarters before reaching Headquarters, AAF.e' Within
the Army itself, then, the organization was poorly adapted to meet
the challenge of an opponent that operated with extreme mobility
under a strictly unified command.
Another serious difficulty arose from the fact that the AAF units
were, according to joint agreement, allocated to the sea frontier
commanders. These allocations were treated by the Navy as more
or less permanent arrangements which, except in grave emergency,
would prevent the AAF units serving under one frontier commander
from operating in the territory of another. This tendency to tie
542

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.