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. 14 …with the commanding general, who in some instances moved in advance of promptings from Wash- ington…
  • p. 25 …EASTERNAND WESTERNAPPROACHESTO PANAMACANAL ALASKAAND THE ALEUTIANISLANDS PRINCIPALSEAAND AIR ROUTESAS DESIGNATEDBY WASH- ATLANTICFERRYINGAND TRANSPORTROUTESPRIORTO . . . . . . . . . . 297 30' 305…
  • p. 229 …the importance of the Far East Air Force in American strategy, the Air Staff in Wash…
  • p. 292 …Even so, there was in Wash- ington too little intelligence concerning the fluid tactical situation to…
  • p. 302 …The suggestion had been carried out in 1941 with the establishment of the U.S. Special…
  • p. 306 …work permanently with the British Joint Intelligence Committee in Wash- ington. The Combined Military Transportation Committee…
  • p. 389 …to delay the take-off was granted only after an appeal to Wash- ington.’O 3…
  • p. 442 …the time and attention of U.S. officers at Brisbane and of headquarters in Wash- ington…
  • p. 443 …Accidents delayed three planes en route, and one of the P-40’s was completely “washed…
  • p. 454 …promise of weakening the enemy. Attention already had been given in Wash- ington to establishment of…
  • p. 554 …In China, he found the procurement of necessary equipment, even be- fore the outbreak of war…
  • p. 636 …After further negotiations in Wash- ington, the Arnold-Towers-Portal agreement was adopted on z I…
  • p. 693 …Accordingly, Wash- ington was requested to send immediately 50 intelligence officers for training by the RAF…
  • p. 747 …before the Committee on Military Af- fairs, House of Representatives (Wash- 23. See, for instance, William…
  • p. 772 …The exact date of the arrival of air units is not known, as the latter source…
  • p. 799 …The road from Haiphong, Indo- China, to Yunnan was closed by the Vichy government in 1940…
  • p. 814 …Overseas (Ferrying), Air Min- istry, Memorandum on the Movement by Air of US. Forces to the…
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 under it. 863 pages are in the text index: search them above, or from the library's search.