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 A R M B E T W E E N T W O W A R S
“the only entirely dependable force” for operating a t sea, and the
Army, which “with its own air forces remains the ultimate decisive
factor in war.” T h e board was firmly opposed to either the unified de-
fense department or the independent air force. T h e history of the air
arm showed, it believed, that “the Air Corps has virtually been inde-
pendent since its inception”; that production failures of 19 I 7- I 8 had
occurred because of its practical exemption from General Staff con-
trol; and that independent air force operations had not been decisive in
the war. Hence the report concluded that “the time has arrived for the
Air Corps to become in all respects a homogeneous part of the Army,
under General Staff control, and be subject to military coordination,
study, influence and operation.” 5 6 Less, not more, autonomy was the
cure for Air Corps ills. T h e desired results could be obtained by
eliminating the now vacant post of Assistant Secretary of War; mak-
ing the Chief of the Air Corps responsible for individual training, pro-
curement, and supply under the Secretary; and following the Drum
Board’s recommendation for establishing a GHQ air force under the
Chief of Staff.
One civilian, James H. Doolittle, filed a minority report, advocating
separation of the Air Corps from the Army.57
T h e Howell commission was free from W a r Department domina-
tion, and many felt that its verdict might run counter to that of the
Baker Board. However, after the latter’s report it appeared wiser to
give the GHQ Air Forcq a trial than to press for more radical measures,
and Howell’s group made no recommendations on the organization
of military a~iation.~’T h e reorganization suggested by Baker went
into effect on I March 1935.59 Tactical units scattered through the
nine corps areas were assigned to the GHQ Air Force, with head-
quarters at Langley Field; its three wings were located at Langley
(Va.) , Barksdale (La.), and March (Calif.) fields. As Commanding
General, GHQ Air Force, Maj. Gen. Frank M. Andrews was respon-
sible for organization, training, and operation of the force, reporting
to the Chief of Staff in peace, the commander of the field forces in
war. The Chief of the Air Corps, Maj. Gen. Oscar Westover, retained
responsibility for individual training, procurement, and supply. Ad-
ministrative control of the air bases remained in the hands of the sev-
eral corps area commanders.
Thus, although the GHQ Air Force provided an improved com-
mand structure for operations by concentrating a considerable share
3 ’

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.