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
with 1,Ioo-lb. bombs intended for the locomotive workshop; the rest
carried 600-lb. missiles earmarked for the Buddicum
The bombing was fairly accurate for a first effort. Approximately
half of the bombs fell in the general target area. One of the aiming
points was hit, and several bombs burst within a radius of 1,500 feet.
Those intended for the other aiming point fell mostly about 2,000
feet to the Fortunately, the yard and adjacent facilities pre-
sented a large target, so that even technically inaccurate bombing
might still be effective. Nevertheless, it was surprisingly good bomb-
ing. And it was effective enough, considering the small size of the
attacking force. Direct hits were scored on two large transshipment
sheds in the center of the marshalling yard, and about ten of the
twenty-four tracks on the sidings were damaged. A quantity of roll-
ing stock was destroyed, damaged, or derailed. As it happened,
activity in the yard was not at its peak when the attack occurred, or
destruction of rolling stock might have been much greater. Damage to
the tracks no doubt interfered with the flow of traffic, but a sufficient
number remained undamaged to deal efficiently with the relatively
low-pressure traffic then moving through the yard. The bottlenecks
a t each end of the sidings were not damaged. The locomotive work-
shop received one direct hit which probably slowed up the working
of locomotives and other rolling stock in and out of the building
quite apart from the constructional damage resulting from blast.28
Despite the inconvenience which this attack undoubtedly caused the
enemy, it was clear that a much larger force would be required to do
lasting damage to a target of this But for the time being, the
extent of the damage inflicted was less important than the relative
accuracy of the bombing.
Important also was the fact that the bombers, both of the attacking
and the diversionary force, came through with no losses and with a
minimum of damage. Enemy opposition had been slight. Antiaircraft
fire was observed at two places, but only two planes sustained dam-
age, and that slight. Fighter opposition was negligible. Three Me-
109’s attacked the formation, and several others put in a silent
appearance. Of those attacking, one was claimed as damaged by fire
from the B-17’s. T h e bomber crews received no injury at all from
enemy action, the only casualties having occurred when, on the way
home, one plane hit a pigeon and the shattered glass from the nose of
the bomber slightly injured the bombardier and navigator.2s
664

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.