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 A R M B E T W E E N T W O W A R S
Army (15 October 1935). Ostensibly a compromise, this manual in-
clined toward the General Staff’s point of view. In listing functions
of the GHQ Air Force “beyond the sphere of influence of the.Ground
Forces,” it included strikes at “military and civil objectives alike”-
air installations, shipping, munitions and aircraft factories, transporta-
tion, etc. There is no effort to establish absolute priorities, since the
relative importance of objectives varies with the situation, but the
judgment is made that as targets “air forces [are] generally of primary
importance.” 1 3 0 There were in T R 4 4 0 - 1 5 few statements to which
the Air Corps could take exception, but its very lack of emphasis made
it a weak instrument for indoctrination. T h e manual remained in force
until 1940, but a sampling of Air Corps opinion during that interval
u7ill indicate that its tenets were by no means universally accepted.
Within the Air Corps two fairly distinct points of view may be
discerned, but it is difficult to determine any principle of alignment
within the several air agencies. One attitude, which for convenience
may be called that of compromise, stressed on political grounds the
defense mission of aviation, but as an interim rather than a permanent
policy. This way of thinking may be seen in an Air Corps Tactical
School critique of General Kilbdurne’s proposed doctrines and in a
counterproposal of 3 I January 1935 called “Suggested Foundation for
GHQ Air Force Doctrine.” l S 1 T h e latter starts with the assumption
that “national policy, geographic location of bases and the present
range of planes which does not permit the air attack of the national
structure of any probable enemy, dictate the role of the GHQ Air
Force as one of air defense and fix its true objective.” 13’ In keeping
with this opinion, first priority is given to preventing an enemy from
setting up air bases within range of the United States, second priority
to defeat of enemy forces operating from such bases.
Similar conclusions may be found in a study, “The Functions of
the Army Air Forces,” presented by the Air Corps Board on 29 Oc-
tober 1936. Assuming that, with current performance of aircraft,
sustained attacks could not be carried out against the homeland of any
major foreign power from bases in U.S. territory, the board declared
that the Air Corps should be immediately and primarily concerned
with national defense and the preservation of internal order. Until an
adequate defense was assured, “the diversion of effort incident to
preparations for strategically offensive operations is not justified.” 133
T h e real intention of this study was to secure for the Air Corps a
49

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.