Documents / Document
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.
“King”32 pages
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 of “light bomber.” li0Since the practical difference between the light and other bombers was as yet not too great, the distinction thus estab- lished had for the moment only a limited significance, but that it carried the promise of serious controversy was soon to be demon- strated. In opposition to Air Corps proposals for specialization the W a r Department in 1928 advocated, partly for reasons of economy, concentration on a single all-purpose bomber. Despite vigorous objections from such officers as Maj. Hugh J. Knerr, then commanding the 2d Bombardment Group, the Chief of the Air Corps in June directed the Materiel Division at Dayton to proceed with the development of a twin-engine plane that would serve for both day and night bombing and, in addition, for observation mis- sions.l“ A prompt protest from the Materiel Division having served to reopen the question, opponents of a “mediocre all-purpose airplane” renewed their efforts in a discussion that continued into the following year. Perhaps because it seemed politically advisable, they concen- trated on an attempt to demonstrate the advantage in a specially designed day bomber. T h e Bombardment Board and the Tactical School joined in proposing for this purpose a plane with speed of 160 miles per hour, a service ceiling of 18,000 feet, a radius of 2 j o miles, bomb load of 1,200 pounds, and armament of 6 machine guns.17*And in February 1929 the authorities yielded to the extent, at least, of directing the Materiel Division to develop a modified version of the Curtiss XO-35 observation plane as a fast day bomber.173 But that success represented something less than a complete victory. Though a principle of great importance to the future of the Air Corps had been preserved, at any rate for the time being, the decision never- theless left an open question as to how far the airmen would be permitted to go in the development of types other than those specifi- cally designed for support of ground forces. In fact, it is not easy to determine the extent to which the full implications of the controversy were appreciated by either side a t the time. T h e airmen themselves had based their arguments on a distinction between day and night bom- bardment, in accordance with experience in the first World War, and it is significant that the Air Corps Tactical School on second thought expressed its concern in 1930over the confusion likely to result from such a d i s t i n ~ t i 0 n . l ~ ~It felt that, while the one type normally would be used chiefly in the day and the other a t night, to distinguish between light and heavy bombers would be less misleading; and such a usage, 59
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.