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…
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
sion when war came, and it was generally assumed that SPOBS or
that mission, with Chaney in command, would form the nucleus of
USAFBI.” This assumption had been officially confirmed by No-
vember 1 9 4 1 , ~ ’and hence throughout his year overseas Chaney, in
one capacity or another, was charged with determining the organiza-
tional structure for U.S. forces in Britain. On 2 0 September he wrote
to General Marshall concerning this “matter of prime importance,”
outlining a system of operational and administrative controls based on
his concept of the RAINBOW No. 5 task forces.’O A few weeks later
he was called back to Washington on temporary duty, and there on
7 November General Arnold and members of the Air Staff described
to him a new type of theater air force which Lt. Gen. Frank M.
Andrews was finding successful in the Caribbean.“ When Chaney re-
turned to London a few days later, he carried a letter from Arnold
which urged the adoption of this system in the United Kingdom.”
General Arnold’s scheme reflected on a lower echelon the forth-
coming reorganization of the W a r Department; some important fea-
tures were borrowed from the RAF. H e proposed to effect a sharp
cleavage between air and ground elements in the theater, integrating
the former into a “composite air force” under a single air commander
who should be directly responsible to Chaney as commanding general
of USAFBI. T h e air force was to comprise a bomber, an interceptor,
and a service command. All air units would be assigned to this force
and would not be responsible to the subcommanders of the several
task forces listed in RAINBOW No. 5. Such a scheme would insure
for the air component unity of command and integrity of forces,
while relieving Chaney of administrative and tactical details; it was
also flexible enough to accommodate the vast air force which might
eventually be deployed in England.
Chaney’s reply, a long letter of 5 December, consisted of a critique
of Arnold’s proposal and a description of his own plan, essentially
that which he had suggested to Marshall in September.’’ Chaney
thought that Arnold’s desire for separate air and ground organizations
was based upon a misconception of RAINBOW No. 5. Ground forces
designated therein were small, and save for the token force existed
only for protection of air and naval bases-hence no ground force
commander was needed. Air forces would have two missions: to pro-
vide, in certain areas, an “air defense, integrated into the air defense of
* See above, pp. 163-64.
579

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.