DOCSLIB.ORG

Airpower and Ground Armies : Essays on the Evolution of Anglo-American Air Doctrine

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Airpower and Ground Armies : Essays on the Evolution of Anglo-American Air Doctrine Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Airpower and ground armies : essays on the evolution of Anglo-American air doctrine. 1940- 1943/ editor, Daniel R Mortensen. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. Air power-Great Britain-History. 2. Air power-United States-History. 3. World War, 1939-1945- Aerial operations, British, 4. World War, 1939-1945-Aerial operations, American. 5. World War, 1939-1945-Campaigns-Africa, North. 6. Operation Torch. I. Mortensen, Daniel R. UG635.G7A89 1998 358.4’03-dc21 97-46744 CIP Digitize December 2002 from 1998 Printing NOTE: Pagination changed Disclaimer Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of Air University, the United States Air Force, the Department of Defense, or any other US government agency. Cleared for public release: distribution unlimited. Table of Contents Page DISCLAIMER ..................................................................................................................... i FORWARD........................................................................................................................ iii ABOUT THE EDITOR .......................................................................................................v INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. vi GETTING TOGETHER ......................................................................................................1 Vincent Orange A GLIDER IN THE PROPWASH OF THE ROYAL AIR FORCE?...............................30 David R. Mets THE LEGEND OF LAURENCE KUTER........................................................................64 Daniel R. Mortensen PATTON AND WEYLAND...........................................................................................100 David Spires APPENDIX......................................................................................................................108 BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................................124 ii Forward It was inevitable that the airman’s perspective regarding the employment of airpower in an operational theater would surface in North Africa, the first major American offensive of World War II. The publication of Field Manuals (FM) 31-35, Aviation in Support of Ground Forces, and 100-20, Command and Employment of Air Power, was a manifestation of how airmen looked at the command of airpower, the selection of missions, and the assignment of priorities. The institutionalized conflict between soldiers and airmen over air employment that raised its head in Africa continues, regardless of the recorded combat experiences of, and the individual rapport among, field commanders. North Africa provided a stage to expose these deep-seated conflicting views of airpower. The soldier viewed the war in terms of brigades, divisions, corps, and armies; some saw the application of airpower as being in direct support of their own combat formations. The airman, on the other hand, saw the application of airpower in terms of the entire theater of operations; therefore, he saw it employed in situations and against enemy forces presenting the greatest threat in the theater. The establishment of three priorities for air missions-superiority, interdiction, and close air support- was a focus of his perspective of theater air operations. Historical experience greatly affected the advocacy of this theater-wide operational scheme, particularly the way airpower was initially commanded and employed in North Africa. As commander of the 33d Fighter Group throughout the campaign, I participated in the testing of Air Force doctrine. A number of circumstances suggested that using the African experience as a model for doctrinal change was not appropriate. Among these were insufficient aircraft, lack of replacements, untrained personnel, inadequate all-weather airfields, and a lack of radar with extensive communications systems. Moreover, the command and employment of the available airpower in North Africa was flawed. Like other fighter groups, the fighter group I commanded was committed piecemeal, with insufficient forces. from one mission assignment to another-all with predictable results, including high losses and unsatisfactory effect on the German air and ground forces facing us at that time. The commanding general of II Corps considered the XII Air Support Command part of his command and therefore subject to the mission of II Corps. In addition, the 33d Fighter Group initially provided umbrella cover over the ground commander's deployed troops and directly attacked targets in front of these units. In the north, Royal Air Force (RAF) 242 Group was being employed in the same manner in support of the British army. Between the First Army in the north and II Corps in the south was the French XIX Corps, which considered the 33d as its support group via the XII Air Support Command. No single air command was responsible for gaining air superiority and interdicting German ground forces that were moving into and within the area of combat, even though the XII Bomber Command under Gen James H. “Jimmy” Doolittle was bombing German airfields in North Africa and Italy. Along with an air campaign needing a focus to gain control of the air and interdict the battlefield, there was a need to reorganize the command structure. This need was apparent even iii before Casablanca and the debacle at Kasserine Pass. In addition, with the British Eighth Army and Desert Air Force moving into Tunisia, Allied actions had to be closely coordinated to prevent mutual interference. Even without a Casablanca Conference, a reorganization would have occurred. Although the Casablanca Conference of January 1943 was renowned for the decision made there to continue the daylight bombing of Germany, its effect on the command and employment of theater airpower was even more profound. In essence, the decision to establish a tactical and strategic air force under a single air commander (Northwest African Air Forces under Gen Carl A Spaatz) created a theater command structure with coequal air and ground commanders under Gen Dwight D. Eisenhower. By this arrangement, the air and ground component commanders received equal footing. Previously, tactical airpower was subordinated, thus limiting the ability of XII Air Support Command and RAF 242 Group to influence the determination of theater strategy, the employment of forces, and the assignment of priority in application. It is against this background that the long-standing ideas of airmen brightened, leading to the development and publication of FM 100-20 and, later, to revisions of the basic tactical doctrinal manual (FM 31- 35). These manuals served the purpose, perhaps too shrilly in retrospect, of articulating what airmen believed about airpower and how their perspectives on its use related to the views of ground forces. These manuals continue even today to be the foundation of what airmen believe about airpower and its relationship to the other services in a combat theater. The North Africa experience provided a model for the organization and employment of tactical airpower in subsequent campaigns in Europe, Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf War. In each of these campaigns, planners have continued to refine, expand, and improve the effectiveness of tactical air support for all forces in a theater. The priorities for employment are a function of the most pressing threat and the greatest opportunity for imposing a major effect on the fighting ability of the opposing forces. The flexibility of tactical air (its greatest asset) permits a shifting focus between air superiority, interdiction, and close air support in accordance with the priority established by the overall commander. Differences in opinion on the employment of forces will continue among air, ground, and sea commanders in combat situations. However, when the overall commander in the theater makes a decision on the strategy and priority of operations, the air component commander must and will apply his forces in accordance with that decision. WILLIAM W. MOMYER, Gen, USAF, Retired iv About the Editor Daniel R. Mortensen has been associated with US Air Force history programs since 1978. He is currently affiliated with the Air Staff History Office, Pentagon, Washington, D.C. Dr. Mortensen's publications include a US Air Force manuscript on the doctrine and practices of tactical airpower and the US Army Center of Military History's World War II Close Air Support Joint Operations: North Africa. He is a frequent presenter at historical association meetings and has taught numerous classes on the history of airpower. v Introduction Long before the current struggle between the Army and Air Force over the deep attack mission, the services debated employment of air resources. Among the earliest roles and missions issues of the 1930s, the Army argued that ground commanders needed to control air resources for “unity of command” principles. Airmen countered by citing “centralized control” principles. Historians have often suggested that the issue of centralized command was settled by the Battle of Kasserine Pass early in World War II. Continued research has shown that the centralized air command, as well as air superiority, was well established in published doctrine several years before World War II. Nevertheless, Africa was argued to be an effective
Load more

Recommended publications
  • DRAINING of OFFICERS CANDIDATES CE.S Si ARMY
    DRAINING Of OFFICERS CANDIDATES CE.S Si ARMY GROUND FORCES STUDY HO. 31 IISACGSC LIBRARY 1i tfrmiftf TRAINING OF OFFICERS CANDIDATES IN A G F SPECIAL TRAINING SCHOOLS Study No. 31 this dots ("Fiic Sif^ ' 1*7 $0 Historical Section . Army Ground Forces 1946 19 NwV ; S ' LLl*« AJLtiii The Army Ground Forces TRAINING OF OFFICER CANDIDATES IN AGF SPECIAL SERVICE SCHOOLS Study No, 31 By Major William R. Keast Historical Section - Army Ground Forces 1946 B E 3 T E I fc T'E D HEADQUAETERS ARMY GROUND FOECES WASHINGTON 25, D, C. 31^.7(1 Sept 19^o)GNHIS 1 September 19^5 SUBJECT: Studies in the History of Aimy Ground. Forces TO: All Interested Agencies 1. The hist017 of the Array Ground Forces as a command was prepared during the course of the war and completed immediately thereafter. The studies prepared in Headquarters Anny Ground Forces,'were written "by professional historians, three of whom served as commissioned officers, and one as a civilian. The histories of the subordinate commands were prepared by historical officers, who except iii Second Army, acted as such in addition to other duties. 2. From, the first, the histoiy was designed primarily for the Army. Its object is to give an account of what was done from the point of view of the command preparing the histoiy, including a candid, and factual account of difficulties, mistakes recognized as such, the means by which, in the opinion of those concerned, they might have been avoided, the measures used to overcome them, and the effectiveness of such measures.
    [Show full text]
  • How the Luftwaffe Lost the Battle of Britain British Courage and Capability Might Not Have Been Enough to Win; German Mistakes Were Also Key
    How the Luftwaffe Lost the Battle of Britain British courage and capability might not have been enough to win; German mistakes were also key. By John T. Correll n July 1940, the situation looked “We shall fight on the beaches, we shall can do more than delay the result.” Gen. dire for Great Britain. It had taken fight on the landing grounds, we shall Maxime Weygand, commander in chief Germany less than two months to fight in the fields and in the streets, we of French military forces until France’s invade and conquer most of Western shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, predicted, “In three weeks, IEurope. The fast-moving German Army, surrender.” England will have her neck wrung like supported by panzers and Stuka dive Not everyone agreed with Churchill. a chicken.” bombers, overwhelmed the Netherlands Appeasement and defeatism were rife in Thus it was that the events of July 10 and Belgium in a matter of days. France, the British Foreign Office. The Foreign through Oct. 31—known to history as the which had 114 divisions and outnumbered Secretary, Lord Halifax, believed that Battle of Britain—came as a surprise to the Germany in tanks and artillery, held out a Britain had lost already. To Churchill’s prophets of doom. Britain won. The RAF little longer but surrendered on June 22. fury, the undersecretary of state for for- proved to be a better combat force than Britain was fortunate to have extracted its eign affairs, Richard A. “Rab” Butler, told the Luftwaffe in almost every respect.
    [Show full text]
  • The London Gazette
    tftnmb 37655 SUPPLEMENT TO The London Gazette Of TUESDAY, the i6th of JULY, 1946 by Registered as a newspaper WEDNESDAY, 17 JULY, 1946 The War Office,' July, 1946 OPERATIONS OF EAST AFRICA COMMAND, I2TH JULY, 1941 TO 8xH JANUARY, 1943 The following Despatch was submitted on area where General Nasi's forces were still March, 1943, to the Secretary of State for holding out, organised resistance in Ethiopia War by LIEUT.-GENERAL SIR WILLIAM had ceased prior to my predecessor's last PLATT, G.B.E., K.C.B., D.S.O., General despatch which dealt with operations up to the Officer Commanding in Chief, East Africa nth of July, 1941. Command. Although military opposition by .Italian On I5th September, 1941, East Africa Force forces had been almost eliminated, the main- as part of. Middle East Forces was abolished tenance of law and order over more than half and replaced by East Africa Command directly a million square miles of conquered territory under the War Office, covering the territories presented no small problem. The country was from Eritrea in the North to the Zambesi in armed from North to South and from East to the South. My predecessor Lieut.-General Sir West, with rifles, ammunition, grenades and Alan Cunningham, K.C.B., D.S.O., M.C., many automatics. More than 20,000 rifles, left East Africa on 29th August, 1941, to with over 20 million rounds of ammunition had assume command of the Eighth Army in been pumped into Ethiopia from the Sudan Middle East. Until my arrival on 5th Decem- alone to aid the Patriots in their revolt against ber, 1941, Major-General H.
    [Show full text]
  • General Carl A. Spaatz
    SCHOLARSHIP IN HONOR OF GENERAL CARL A. SPAATZ U.S. AIR FORCE General Carl A. Spaatz The story of the life of General Carl A. over Los Angeles and vicinity January 1-7, 1929, Spaatz is the story of military aviation in keeping the plane aloft a record total of 150 hours, the United States. 50 minutes and 15 seconds, and was awarded the T Distinguished Flying Cross. Carl Spaatz was born June 28, 1891, in Boyertown, Pennsylvania. In 1910, he was appointed to the From May 1, 1929, to October 29, 1931, General United States Military Academy from which he Spaatz commanded the Seventh Bombardment was graduated June 12, 1914 and commissioned Group at Rockwell Field, California, and the First a 2nd Lt. of Infantry. He served with the Twen- Bombardment Wing at March Field, California, ty-Fifth United States Infantry at Schofield Bar- until June 10, 1933. He then served in the Office racks, Hawaii, from October 4, 1914, to October of the Chief of Air Corps and became Chief of the 13, 1915, when he was detailed as a student in the Training and Operations Division. Aviation School at San Diego, California, until May 15, 1916. In January 1942, General Spaatz was assigned as Chief of the AAF Combat Command at Wash- In June 1916, General Spaatz was assigned at Co- ington. In May 1942, he became Commander lumbus, New Mexico, and served with the First of the Eighth Air Force, transferring to the Eu- Aero Squadron under General John J. Pershing in ropean theater of operations in that capacity in the Punitive Expedition into Mexico.
    [Show full text]
  • JAPCC Annual Report 2019
    2019 annual REPORT Joint Air Power Competence Centre Joint Air Power www.japcc.org Competence Centre Cover picture: Satellite: © ESA /AOES Medialab; Earth: © 2012 EUMETSAT; Background: © StarLine /shutterstock © This work is copyrighted. All Inquiries should be made to: The Editor, Joint Air Power Competence Centre (JAPCC), [email protected] Disclaimer This publication is a product of the JAPCC. It does not represent the opinions or policies of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and is designed to provide an independent overview, analysis, food for thought and recommendations regarding a possible way ahead on the subject. Release This document is releasable to the Public. Portions of the document may be quoted without permission, provided a standard source credit is included. Published and distributed by The Joint Air Power Competence Centre von­Seydlitz­Kaserne Römerstraße 140 47546 Kalkar Germany Telephone: +49 (0) 2824 90 2201 Facsimile: +49 (0) 2824 90 2208 E­Mail: [email protected] Website: www.japcc.org Denotes images digitally manipulated Follow us on Social Media JAPCC | annual REPORT 2019 1 foreword Today, NATO Air Forces stand on the verge of the at the peer­to­peer level. We must use the lessons most meaningful transformation of technology and learned from this and other exercises to evolve our capability in our history, a transformation which con­ Alliance into a connected, Joint All Domain fighting tinues to be enabled in part by the independent force that is agile and capable of acting at speed that thought and analysis from the recognized air and future conflicts will require. I have great confidence space power experts in the Joint Air Power Compe­ that our Nations and our people will work closely with tence Centre.
    [Show full text]
  • Joint Air Power Following the 2016 Warsaw Summit-Urgent Priorities
    NATO UNCLASSIFIED – PUBLICLY DISCLOSED ING TH LOW E 20 OL 16 F W R A E R W S O A W P R I S U A M T M N I I T O J URGENT PRIORITIES PRIORITIES URGENT UR ES GENT PRIORITI JOINT AIR POWER FOLLOWING THE 2016 WARSAW SUMMIT URGENT PRIORITIES Joint Air Power Competence Centre JOINT AIR POWER NATO UNCLASSIFIED – PUBLICLY DISCLOSED NATO UNCLASSIFIED – PUBLICLY DISCLOSED Joint Air Power Following the 2016 Warsaw Summit – Urgent Priorities An Allied Command Transformation Headquarters Study Conducted by the Joint Air Power Competence Centre NATO UNCLASSIFIED – PUBLICLY DISCLOSED NATO UNCLASSIFIED – PUBLICLY DISCLOSED Joint Air Power Following the 2016 Warsaw Summit Urgent Priorities An Allied Command Transformation Headquarters Study Conducted by the Joint Air Power Competence Centre NATO UNCLASSIFIED – PUBLICLY DISCLOSED NATO UNCLASSIFIED – PUBLICLY DISCLOSED © This work is copyrighted. No part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission. Inquiries should be made to: The Editor, Joint Air Power Competence Centre (JAPCC), [email protected] Disclaimer This publication is a Supreme Allied Commander Transformation (SACT) HQ commis- sioned study conducted by the Joint Air Power Competence Centre (JAPCC). All copyright and intellectual property rights reside with HQ ACT, unless otherwise licensed. The views expressed in this work do not necessarily represent the position of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), but are offered to foster dialogue and discussion re- garding urgent priorities in the field of air power capabilities and competencies. Though NATO classified documents may have informed the work of the authors, no clas- sified information has been directly quoted in this study, nor were any parts of classified information re-used in any form without prior sanitization.
    [Show full text]
  • Joseph Warren Stilwell Papers
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/tf958006qb Online items available Register of the Joseph Warren Stilwell papers Finding aid prepared by Aparna Mukherjee, revised by Lyalya Kharitonova Hoover Institution Library and Archives © 2003, 2014, 2015, 2017 434 Galvez Mall Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305-6003 [email protected] URL: http://www.hoover.org/library-and-archives Register of the Joseph Warren 51001 1 Stilwell papers Title: Joseph Warren Stilwell papers Date (inclusive): 1889-2010 Collection Number: 51001 Contributing Institution: Hoover Institution Library and Archives Language of Material: English Physical Description: 93 manuscript boxes, 16 oversize boxes, 1 cubic foot box, 4 album boxes, 4 boxes of slides, 7 envelopes, 1 oversize folder, 3 sound cassettes, sound discs, maps and charts, memorabilia(57.4 Linear Feet) Abstract: Diaries, correspondence, radiograms, memoranda, reports, military orders, writings, annotated maps, clippings, printed matter, sound recordings, and photographs relating to the political development of China, the Sino-Japanese War of 1937-1945, and the China-Burma-India Theater during World War II. Includes some subsequent Stilwell family papers. World War II diaries also available on microfilm (3 reels). Transcribed copies of the diaries are available at https://digitalcollections.hoover.org Creator: Stilwell, Joseph Warren, 1883-1946 Hoover Institution Library & Archives Access Boxes 36-38 and 40 may only be used one folder at a time. Box 39 closed; microfilm use copy available. Boxes 67, 72-73, 113, and 117 restricted; use copies available in Box 116. The remainder of the collection is open for research; materials must be requested at least two business days in advance of intended use.
    [Show full text]
  • (June 1941) and the Development of the British Tactical Air Doctrine
    Journal of Military and Strategic VOLUME 14, ISSUE 1, FALL 2011 Studies A Stepping Stone to Success: Operation Battleaxe (June 1941) and the Development of the British Tactical Air Doctrine Mike Bechthold On 16 February 1943 a meeting was held in Tripoli attended by senior American and British officers to discuss the various lessons learned during the Libyan campaign. The focus of the meeting was a presentation by General Bernard Montgomery. This "gospel according to Montgomery," as it was referred to by Air Chief Marshal Arthur Tedder, set out very clearly Monty's beliefs on how air power should be used to support the army.1 Among the tenets Montgomery articulated was his conviction of the importance of air power: "Any officer who aspires to hold high command in war must understand clearly certain principles regarding the use of air power." Montgomery also believed that flexibility was the greatest asset of air power. This allowed it to be applied as a "battle-winning factor of the first importance." As well, he fully endorsed the air force view of centralized control: "Nothing could be more fatal to successful results than to dissipate the air resource into small packets placed under the control of army formation commanders, with each packet working on its own plan. The soldier must not expect, or wish, to exercise direct command over air striking forces." Montgomery concluded his discussion by stating that it was of prime importance for the army and air 1 Arthur Tedder, With Prejudice: The war memoirs of Marshal of the Royal Air Force, Lord Tedder (London: Cassell, 1966), p.
    [Show full text]
  • German Attacks Smashed
    Bit New York—London Paris—Renues lei On Parle Frangais Tuesday, Sept. 19, 1944 THEST^ Vous etes differente. Vol. 1. No. 66 MTRIPES Voo zet deefayrONT. Daily Newspaper of U.S. Armed Forces J in the You are different. S^t^^ European Theater of Operations German Attacks Smashed Air, Land Windmills and Dykes Are Ahead 7th Army Units Join IsReported * In Holland At Belfort Their numbers swelled by American First Army units glider-borne reinforcements, inside Germany yesterday the First Allied Airborne beat off repeated counter-at- Army, after liberating at least tacks by strong enemy forces, 13 Dutch villages, last night supported by fresh reserves linked up with British Sec- from the Russian front, while Third U.S. Army troops drove ond Army spearheads which 18 miles east of Nancy to a had advanced 13 miles across point about 50 miles from southern Holland. Strasbourg and the Rhine. Although supreme Allied head- Meanwhile, Paris Radio reported that Lt. Gen. Alexander M. Patch's quarters was silent about the deve- Seventh Army had entered Belfort, lopment of the new offensive, dis- which lies in the so-called gateway patches from the front and from to southwestern Germany, 30 miles Second Army headquarters reported from the Rhine frontier. that a junction between the troops Now fighting in Holland, troops of the First Allied Airborne Army, parade during: a review at which Gen. After being pushed back two of Lt. Gen. Lewis H. Brereton and Eisenhower told the men that "through your effective employment we will end this war far more quickly miles in the Luxemburg frontier Gen.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects-Based Operations and the Law of Aerial Warfare
    Washington University Global Studies Law Review Volume 5 Issue 2 January 2006 Effects-based Operations and the Law of Aerial Warfare Michael N. Schmitt George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_globalstudies Part of the Military, War, and Peace Commons Recommended Citation Michael N. Schmitt, Effects-based Operations and the Law of Aerial Warfare, 5 WASH. U. GLOBAL STUD. L. REV. 265 (2006), https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_globalstudies/vol5/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Global Studies Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Washington University Global Studies Law Review VOLUME 5 NUMBER 2 2006 EFFECTS-BASED OPERATIONS AND THE LAW OF AERIAL WARFARE MICHAEL N. SCHMITT* Law responds almost instinctively to tectonic shifts in warfare.1 For instance, the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 constituted a dramatic reaction to the suffering of civilian populations during World War II.2 Similarly, the 1977 Protocols Additional3 updated and expanded the law of armed conflict (LOAC) in response both to the growing prevalence of non-international armed conflicts and wars of national liberation and to the recognized need to codify the norms governing the conduct of hostilities.4 In light of this symbiotic relationship, it is essential that LOAC experts carefully monitor developments in military affairs, because such developments may well either strain or strengthen aspects of that body of law.5 As an example, the widespread use in Iraq of civilian contractors and * Professor of International Law and Director, Program in Advanced Security Studies, George C.
    [Show full text]
  • Leadership and Operational Art in World War II
    he U.S. Army’s reputation for effectiveness during World War T II has not fared well over time, particularly regarding the European theater of operations. This is surprising given what the Army accomplished. Just to refresh the reader’s memory, the United States went to war with a small, impoverished Army that conducted maneuvers with wooden weapons and borrowed vehicles in the years leading up to World War II. Yet within 12 months of Germany declaring war on the United States, the Army invaded North Africa and knocked Vichy French forces out of the war. In another 12 months, it knocked Italy out of the war. And 12 months later, the Army was on the border of Germany, having just defeated Adolf Hitler’s last-gasp effort to stop the Allied onslaught. Nevertheless, these achievements seem to have diminished over time. By way of illustration, ask any military of- ficer which of the following factors best explains U.S. victories in the European theater during World War II: • Army leaders executed an organi- zational miracle in quickly creating Left to right, Henry H. Arnold, Joseph T. competent armies that won a series McNarney, George C. Marshall, Brehon of victories from North Africa to the B. Somervell, and Lesley J. McNair (NDU Special Collections) heart of Germany. • The Russians did the preponderance of fighting, leaving an exhausted Wehrmacht to be mopped up by the relatively incapable Army. • The American people tightened their Leadership and collective belt so U.S. and Russian forces together could overwhelm the German military with vastly superior Operational Art in numbers of .
    [Show full text]
  • The US Army Air Forces in WWII
    DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES AIR FORCE Air Force Historical Studies Office 28 June 2011 Errata Sheet for the Air Force History and Museum Program publication: With Courage: the United States Army Air Forces in WWII, 1994, by Bernard C. Nalty, John F. Shiner, and George M. Watson. Page 215 Correct: Second Lieutenant Lloyd D. Hughes To: Second Lieutenant Lloyd H. Hughes Page 218 Correct Lieutenant Hughes To: Second Lieutenant Lloyd H. Hughes Page 357 Correct Hughes, Lloyd D., 215, 218 To: Hughes, Lloyd H., 215, 218 Foreword In the last decade of the twentieth century, the United States Air Force commemorates two significant benchmarks in its heritage. The first is the occasion for the publication of this book, a tribute to the men and women who served in the U.S. Army Air Forces during World War 11. The four years between 1991 and 1995 mark the fiftieth anniversary cycle of events in which the nation raised and trained an air armada and com- mitted it to operations on a scale unknown to that time. With Courage: U.S.Army Air Forces in World War ZZ retells the story of sacrifice, valor, and achievements in air campaigns against tough, determined adversaries. It describes the development of a uniquely American doctrine for the application of air power against an opponent's key industries and centers of national life, a doctrine whose legacy today is the Global Reach - Global Power strategic planning framework of the modern U.S. Air Force. The narrative integrates aspects of strategic intelligence, logistics, technology, and leadership to offer a full yet concise account of the contributions of American air power to victory in that war.
    [Show full text]