The Army Air Forces in World War II, Vol. 1 (archived PDF)

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
its functions were extended to include an investigation of “poor
bombing results” in the European theater. From midsummer until
the end of 1941,the board continued its study of bombardment in
England and in the United States. The analysis of RAF and Luftwaffe
operations did little to change current unflattering estimates, but the
report on AAF bombardment rendered on 2 January 1942left little
cause for complacency.21TT h e remarkable scores achieved by the
AAF had been made under ideal conditions: experienced crews flying
in the cloudless-and flakless-skies of the American Southwest.
AWPD/I would have to be accomplished by crews trained in the
hastily expanding air force. Bombing accuracy a t present was far
below the capabilities of existing equipment-as, in fact, it was to be
throughout the war. Few crews were sufficiently trained for night
bombing to justify adopting RAF practice, and indeed there was “no
bombardment unit of the Air Forces ready for combat operations in
any theater without a minimum of three months additional train-
ing.” ’’’ This was a serious condition in an air force already at war.
The board suggested certain remedial steps in regard to training and
recommended that no unit be committed to an active theater until it
had demonstrated its proficiency by specific achievement tests.
The exigencies of war made this last item impractical, but in gen-
eral the report was enthusiastically received.’l’ O n 26 February,
Arnold established the Bombardment Tactical Committee consisting
of five bombardment experts, and specialists on antiaircraft artillery,
radar, and meteorology. The committee was charged with “preparing
the doctrines, tactics, and technique of employment of air forces in the
European theater,” and of making recommendations for improvements
in training and equipment necessary thereto.’20 In the meanwhile,
work toward the same ends had begun in the theater.
General Eaker had arrived in England on 2 0 February to prepare
for the reception of the USAFBI bomber command. Among other
duties he was charged with studying the doctrines and operational
and he had been advised
by Spaatz to exhaust fully the possibilities of daylight bombing. His
long report of 2 0 March contained, therefore, a critique of British
doctrines and an estimate of AAF capabilities.222Several weeks of
observation had given Eaker a healthy respect for Bomber Com-
mand’s work, and he tended to justify rather than condemn their
choice of night operations. With forces inadequate to the primary
, procedures of RAF Bomber
605