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
on 24 July by inquiring if U.S. air support for TORCH would be
drawn from strength assigned to BOLERO.63From one as familiar
with the aircraft situation as Sir Charles, that must have been a
rhetorical question. There was no other source to tap, and the Joint
Chiefs specifically stated that heavy and medium bomber groups
would be shifted from BOLERO assignments to A f r i ~ a . ~ ”General
Spaatz thought it might even be necessary to use all AAF units in the
United Kingdom for TORCH.65
Nor was TORCH the only successful rival. On 7 July the Com-
bined Chiefs of Staff had taken under consideration a proposed
schedule of deployments according to which the AAF was to have
in the United Kingdom by April 1943 a total of 3,640 combat
planes.66But in the meeting of 24 July, the Combined Chiefs had
agreed to divert from this force fifteen combat groups of various
categories * to spearhead projected offensives in the Pacific.67 This
decision Arnold had vainly opposed on the ground that constant
fluctuation in BOLERO assignments “makes our course seem vacillat-
ing.” T o his mind, the Southwest Pacific loomed as a more formid-
able rival of accepted plans than TORCH, which after all was to be
a blow against German power, if not at its source. As Marshall had
pointed out in London on 24 July, the American concept of the air
war against Germany had been that the AAF would operate against
Germany from any suitable base, and that in winter weather Africa
might offer some advantages over the United Kingdom.60
This was perhaps an indirect reference to AWPD/I.t That plan,
with its design for shuttling between England and Africa, had con-
templated the use of very long-range bombers not yet in production;
neither B-17’s nor B-24’S could hit Germany from African bases.
General Spaatz was not enthusiastic about the prospects. H e wrote
Arnold on I I August, “Regardless of what operations are conducted
in any other theater, in my opinion, this [England] still remains the
only base area from which to launch aerial operations to obtain air
supremacy over Germany, and until such air supremacy is established
there can be no successful outcome of the war.”’O Intensive opera-
tions could not be conducted from both areas at the same time with
the limited forces available. Arnold’s chief of staff, Maj. Gen. George
* Groups were as follows: three heavy bombardment, two medium bombardment,
two light bombardment, two fighter, two observation, four transport. A fuller treat-
ment of this decision will appear in Volume IV.
t See above, pp. 148-49.
574

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.