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…
P L A N S , P O L I C I E S , A N D O R G A N I Z A T I O N
terms, were in the nature of a general guide rather than of a specific
directive. All armed forces of both nations serving in the United
Kingdom and British home waters (including Iceland) were to be
under the strategic direction of the appropriate British commander in
chief; all U.S. forces were to be under the immediate control of the
commanding general of the U.S. Army Forces in Great Britain (or
British Isles-USAFBI) .74 What that would mean in actual practice,
no one knew; an American general could write somewhat perplexedly
in September I 94 I :
I find certain terms not susceptible of standard interpretation by our own
people, with the general result of a somewhat cloudy issue. I keep struggling
with “strategical direction,” “operational control,” and “administrative com-
mand”, . . . I am not trying to start an argument but I am trying to call
attention to the need for evolving a practical and efficient command system
under circumstances for which I know no p r e ~ e d e n t . ~ ~
RAINBOW No. 5 had vested the commanding general of USAFBI
with the duty of developing such a system, giving him “authority to
arrange with the Air Ministry and the War Office concerning the or-
ganization and location of our task forces and operational control.” ‘‘
Until war should invoke RAINBOW No. 5 , there would of course
be no USAFBI commander, but as an interim means of liaison, the
two nations had agreed to exchange military missions: the British
Joint Staff Mission a t Washington, the American Military Mission
at London.” The American mission was to consist of offices known
respectively as the Army Special Observer Group (SPOBS) and the
Naval Special Observer Group (SPENAVO) .
Ostensibly the establishment of SPOBS merely regularized a prac-
tice already in operation, for in 1940 the Air Corps had sent a number
of officers of various grades to watch the Battle of Britain.” Among
the senior officers was Maj. Gen. James E. Chaney, a man of wide
military experience; his tour was especially appropriate in view of an
earlier assignment as a military attach6 in Europe and of his current
dual command over the Air Defense Command and what was to be-
come the vital Northeast Air District.* After six weeks in England,
Chaney had returned in November 1940 to render an optimistic re-
port on Britain’s chance of surviving the air blitz.TvIn the following
April he was ordered back to London as commander of SPOBS, with
Brig. Gen. Joseph T. McNarney as his chief of staff.*’ The choice of
+ See above, pp. 152-53.
577

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.