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. 14 …with the commanding general, who in some instances moved in advance of promptings from Wash- ington…
  • p. 25 …EASTERNAND WESTERNAPPROACHESTO PANAMACANAL ALASKAAND THE ALEUTIANISLANDS PRINCIPALSEAAND AIR ROUTESAS DESIGNATEDBY WASH- ATLANTICFERRYINGAND TRANSPORTROUTESPRIORTO . . . . . . . . . . 297 30' 305…
  • p. 229 …the importance of the Far East Air Force in American strategy, the Air Staff in Wash…
  • p. 292 …Even so, there was in Wash- ington too little intelligence concerning the fluid tactical situation to…
  • p. 302 …The suggestion had been carried out in 1941 with the establishment of the U.S. Special…
  • p. 306 …work permanently with the British Joint Intelligence Committee in Wash- ington. The Combined Military Transportation Committee…
  • p. 389 …to delay the take-off was granted only after an appeal to Wash- ington.’O 3…
  • p. 442 …the time and attention of U.S. officers at Brisbane and of headquarters in Wash- ington…
  • p. 443 …Accidents delayed three planes en route, and one of the P-40’s was completely “washed…
  • p. 454 …promise of weakening the enemy. Attention already had been given in Wash- ington to establishment of…
  • p. 554 …In China, he found the procurement of necessary equipment, even be- fore the outbreak of war…
  • p. 636 …After further negotiations in Wash- ington, the Arnold-Towers-Portal agreement was adopted on z I…
  • p. 693 …Accordingly, Wash- ington was requested to send immediately 50 intelligence officers for training by the RAF…
  • p. 747 …before the Committee on Military Af- fairs, House of Representatives (Wash- 23. See, for instance, William…
  • p. 772 …The exact date of the arrival of air units is not known, as the latter source…
  • p. 799 …The road from Haiphong, Indo- China, to Yunnan was closed by the Vichy government in 1940…
  • p. 814 …Overseas (Ferrying), Air Min- istry, Memorandum on the Movement by Air of US. Forces to the…
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
the coast over an element heretofore regarded as almost exclusively
the Navy’s responsibility. A t the same time, the airplane offered to the
Navy a new weapon of growing potentialities in the performance of
such traditionally naval functions as patrol of coastal sea lanes. Placed
aboard a carrier, the airplane could be regarded merely as a new ele-
ment of the fleet, but the land-based plane carried ceriain advantages
in the fulfilment of some missions at sea. In the development of service
aviation, consequently, there was a tendency for the Navy to move
ashore and for the Army to extend its activities beyond the shore
line.177
In the resultant disputes-which focused from time to time on the
right of the Army to engage in seaward reconnaissance, on the right
of the Navy to acquire land-based planes, and increasingly on its right
to expand shore facilities for land-based planes at the risk of duplicat-
ing existing Army facilities-traditional delineations of function and
responsibility became blurred. Efforts to secure agreement all too
frequently ended in the airing of irreconcilable views, and such was
the peculiar perplexity of the problems raised that attempts to secure
some authoritative and definitive settlement had proved futile.”’
Readily understandable, therefore, is the very evident satisfaction
with which the W a r Department announced on 9 January 1931 the
conclusion of an agreement between Gen. Douglas MacArthur, Chief
of Staff, and Adm. William V. Pratt, Chief of Naval Operations,
intended to leave the air force of each service “free to develop within
well defined limits and each with a separate and distinct mission.”
In his annual report a few months later General MacArthur defined
the agreement in these terms:
Under it the naval air forces will be based on the fleet and move with it as
an important element in performing the essential missions of the forces afloat.
T h e Army air forces will be land based and employed as an element of the
Army in carrying out its missions of defending the coasts, both in the homeland
and in overseas possessions. Through this arrangement the fleet is assured
absolute freedom of action with no responsibility for coast defense, while the
dividing line thus established enables the air component of each service to
proceed with its own planning, training, and procurement activities with little
danger of duplicating those of its sister service.180
Before a congressional committee the following year, General Mac-
Arthur expressed the opinion that the question of coastal air defense
had been “completely and absolutely settled.”
In that same year the War Plans Division of the General Staff
6 2

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.