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
the United States and Great Britain (and through them to other user
nations) in the Arnold-Portal agreement.* Based on the principle that
aircraft allocation should be guided by immediate ability to use the
planes in combat, the agreement had provided for revision when war-
ranted by changing conditions. In Washington the Munitions Assign-
ments Board t had never considered this schedule as more than a
temporary guide, and by May of 1942it was apparent that the related
problems of allocation and deployment must be restudied.
That need had been implied by the British memorandum of 2 2 Feb-
ruary. Now that the SLEDGEHAMMERJROUNDUP strategy had
been accepted, the RAF wanted the United States to increase the allo-
cation of P-40’s for the Middle East in return for Spitfires to equip
AAF fighter units in England, by which expedient RAF Fighter
Command might build a reserve against the heavier losses which an in-
tensive offensive in Europe would On the American side there
were equally cogent reasons: unexpected attrition in the Pacific; the
rapid expansion of the training program with its operational training
units crying for combat planes; and the natural desire of the public
that US. planes be flown by U.S. crews. The demand from theaters
of U.S. responsibility for additional aircraft continued strong. That
was particularly true of the Southwest Pacific, where MacArthur
had assumed command on 18 April. A fortnight later, the Joint Chiefs
of Staff were alarmed by a query from Roosevelt as to whether air-
craft strength in Australia “could properly be” increased to 1,000,
ground forces to IOO,OOO. The question seemed momentarily to in-
dicate some wavering in purpose, but the President immediately
explained that his message had been merely an inquiry, not a directive.
H e wished to deploy in the Southwest Pacific only enough planes to
fulfil present objectives, and desired that existing arrangements for
Europe be carried out: “I do not want ‘Bolero’ slowed down.” s1
This was on 6 May; on the 17th he repeated the sentiment,s2 and a
week later a group of high-ranking Army and Navy officers left for
London for further discussion of BOLERO needs. In the group were
General Arnold and Rear Adm. John H. Towers of the Navy’s
Bureau of Aeronautics. They had been directed to confer with Portal
and a representative of the Fleet Air Arm, and to draw up a new
* See above, pp. 248-49.
t See above, p. 249.
566

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.