United States Army Air Corps

For the current active service branch, seeUnited States Air Force.

TheUnited States Army Air Corps(USAAC) was theaerial warfareservice component of theUnited States Armybetween 1926 and 1941. AfterWorld War I,as early aviation became an increasingly important part of modern warfare, a philosophical rift developed between more traditional ground-based army personnel and those who felt that aircraft were being underutilized and that air operations were being stifled for political reasons unrelated to their effectiveness. The USAAC was renamed from the earlierUnited States Army Air Serviceon 2 July 1926, and was part of the largerUnited States Army.The Air Corps became theUnited States Army Air Forces(USAAF) on 20 June 1941, giving it greater autonomy from the Army's middle-level command structure. DuringWorld War II,although not an administrative echelon, the Air Corps (AC) remained as one of thecombat armsof the Army until 1947, when it was legally abolished by legislation establishing theDepartment of the Air Force.

United States Army Air Corps
Branch insignia of the Army Air Corps
Active	1926 – 1942
Disbanded	September 18, 1947
Country	United States
Branch	Army
Type	Air force
Role	Aerial warfare
Size	14,650 men, 1,646 aircraft (1932) 16,863 men, 855 aircraft (1936) 152,125 men, 6,777 aircraft (1941)
Garrison/HQ	Munitions Building,Washington, D.C.
Colors	Ultramarine blueandgolden orange
March	Army Air Corps
Engagements	World War II
Commanders
Notable commanders	Major GeneralBenjamin D. Foulois Major GeneralHenry H. Arnold
Insignia
Roundel

United States Army Air Corps Recruiting Poster

The Air Corps was renamed by theUnited States Congresslargely as a compromise between the advocates of a separate air arm and those of the traditionalist Army high command who viewed the aviation arm as an auxiliary branch to support the ground forces. Although its members worked to promote the concept of air power and an autonomous air force inthe yearsbetween theworld wars,its primary purpose by Army policy remained support of ground forces rather than independent operations.

On 1 March 1935, still struggling with the issue of a separate air arm, the Army activated theGeneral Headquarters Air Forcefor centralized control of aviation combat units within the continental United States, separate from but coordinate with the Air Corps. The separation of the Air Corps from control of its combat units causedproblems of unity of commandthat became more acute as the Air Corps enlarged in preparation for World War II. This was resolved by the creation of the Army Air Forces (AAF), making both organizations subordinate to the new higher echelon.

On20 June 1941,the Army Air Corps' existence as the primary air arm of the U.S. Army changed to that of solely being the training and logistics elements of the then-newUnited States Army Air Forces,which embraced the formerly-named General Headquarters Air Force under the new Air Force Combat Command organization for front-line combat operations; this new element, along with the Air Corps, comprised the USAAF.

The Air Corps ceased to have an administrative structure after 9 March 1942, but as "the permanent statutory organization of the air arm, and the principal component of the Army Air Forces," the overwhelming majority of personnel assigned to the AAF were members of the Air Corps.

Creation of the Air Corps

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled,that the Act entitled "An act for making further and more effectual provision for the national defense, and other purposes," approved June 3, 1916, as amended, be, and the same is hereby, amended so that the Air Service referred to in that Act and all subsequent Acts of Congress shall be known as the Air Corps.

Public Law 69-446, 2 July 1926

TheU.S. Army Air Servicehad a brief but turbulent history. Created duringWorld War Ibyexecutive orderof PresidentWoodrow Wilsonafter America entered the war in April 1917 as the increasing use of airplanes and the military uses of aviation were readily apparent as the war continued to its climax, theU.S. Army Air Servicegained permanent legislative authority in 1920 as a combatant arm of the line of theUnited States Army.There followed a six-year struggle between adherents of airpower and the supporters of the traditional military services about the value of an independent Air Force, intensified by struggles for funds caused by skimpy budgets, as much an impetus for independence as any other factor.

The Lassiter Board, a group ofGeneral Staffofficers, recommended in 1923 that theAir Servicebe augmented by an offensive force of bombardment and pursuit units under the command of Army general headquarters in time of war, and many of its recommendations became Army regulations. The War Department desired to implement the Lassiter Board's recommendations, but the administration ofPresidentCalvin Coolidgechose instead to economize by radically cutting military budgets, particularly the Army's.The Lampert Committee of theHouse of Representativesin December 1925 proposed a unified air force independent of the Army and Navy, plus a department of defense to coordinate the three armed services.However another board, headed byDwight Morrow,was appointed in September 1925 by Coolidge ostensibly to study the "best means of developing and applying aircraft in national defense" but in reality to minimize the political impact of the pending court-martial ofBilly Mitchell(and to preempt the findings of the Lampert Committee). It declared that no threat of air attack was likely to exist to the United States, rejected the idea of a department of defense and a separate department of air, and recommended minor reforms that included renaming the air service to allow it "more prestige".

In early 1926 the Military Affairs Committee of the Congress rejected all bills set forth before it on both sides of the issue. They fashioned a compromise in which the findings of the Morrow Board were enacted as law, while providing the air arm a "five-year plan" for expansion and development. Maj. Gen.Mason Patrick,the Chief of Air Service, had proposed that it be made a semi-independent service within the War Department along the lines of the Marine Corps within the Navy Department, but this was rejected; only the cosmetic name change was accepted.The legislation changed the name of the Air Service to the Air Corps, (in the words of one analyst) "thereby strengthening the conception of military aviation as an offensive, striking arm rather than an auxiliary service."

Formations ofKeystone LB-7s(lower) andBoeing P-12s(upper) on aerial maneuvers over Burbank, California, 1930

The Air Corps Act (44Stat.780) became law on 2 July 1926. In accordance with the Morrow Board's recommendations, the act created an additionalAssistant Secretary of Warto "help foster military aeronautics", and established an air section in each division of the General Staff for a period of three years. Two additional brigadier generals would serve as assistant chiefs of the Air Corps.Previous provisions of the National Defense Act of 1920 that all flying units be commanded only byrated personneland that flight pay be awarded were continued. The Air Corps also retained the "Prop and Wings"as its branch insignia through its disestablishment in 1947. Patrick became Chief of the Air Corps and Brig. Gen.James E. Fechetcontinued as his first assistant chief. On 17 July 1926, two lieutenant colonels were promoted tobrigadier generalfor four-year terms as assistant chiefs of Air Corps:Frank P. Lahm,to command the newAir Corps Training Center,and William E. Gillmore, in command of theMateriel Division.

Of the new law and organization, however, Wesley F. Craven and James L. Cate in the official history of theUnited States Army Air Forcesconcluded that:

The bill which was finally enacted purported to be a compromise, but it leaned heavily on the Morrow recommendations. The Air Corps Act of 2 July 1926 effected no fundamental innovation. The change in designation meant no change in status: the Air Corps was still acombatant branch of the Armywith less prestige than the Infantry.

The position of the air arm within the Department of War remained essentially the same as before, that is, the flying units were under the operational control of the various ground forcescorps areacommands and not the Air Corps, which remained responsible for procurement and maintenance of aircraft, supply, and training. Because of a lack of legally specified duties and responsibilities, the new position ofAssistant Secretary of War for Air,held byF. Trubee Davisonfrom July 1926 to March 1933, proved of little help in promoting autonomy for the air arm.

Five-year expansion program

The Air Corps Act gave authorization to carry out a five-year expansion program. However, a lack of appropriations caused the beginning of the program to be delayed until 1 July 1927. Patrick proposed an increase to 63tactical squadrons(from an existing 32) to maintain the program of the Lassiter Board already in effect, but Chief of Staff Gen.John Hinesrejected the recommendation in favor of a plan drawn up by ground force Brig. Gen.Hugh Drumthat proposed 52 squadrons.The act authorized expansion to 1,800 airplanes, 1,650 officers, and 15,000 enlisted men, to be reached in regular increments over a five-year period. None of the goals was reached by July 1932. Neither of the relatively modest increases in airplanes or officers was accomplished until 1938 because adequate funds were never appropriated and the coming of theGreat Depressionforced reductions in pay and modernization across the board in the Army.Organizationally the Air Corps doubled from seven to fifteengroups,but the expansion was meaningless because all were seriously understrength in aircraft and pilots.(Origin of first seven groups shown here)

Air Corps groups added 1927–1937

Group	Station	Date activated	Aircraft type
18th Pursuit Group	Wheeler Field,Hawaii	20 January 1927	PW-9
7th Bombardment Group	Rockwell Field,California	1 June 1928	LB-7,B-3A
12th Observation Group	Brooks Field,Texas	1 October 1930	O-19
20th Pursuit Group	Mather Field,California	15 November 1930	P-12
8th Pursuit Group	Langley Field,Virginia	1 April 1931	P-6
17th Pursuit Group	March Field,California	1 July 1931	P-12
19th Bomb Group	Rockwell Field,California	24 June 1932	B-10
16th Pursuit Group	Albrook Field, Canal Zone	1 December 1932	P-12
10th Transport Group	Patterson Field,Ohio	20 May 1937	C-27C-33

As units of the Air Corps increased in number, so did higher command echelons. The2nd Wing,activated in 1922 as part of the Air Service, remained the only wing organization in the new Air Corps until 1929, when it was redesignated the 2nd Bombardment Wing in anticipation of the activation of the1st Bombardment Wing,providing a bombardment wing on each coast.The 1st Bomb Wing was activated in 1931, followed by the3rd Attack Wingin 1932, protecting thesouthern border,at which time the 1st became the 1st Pursuit Wing. The three wings became the foundation of General Headquarters Air Force upon its activation in 1935.

Aircraft and personnel 1926–1935

O-46A at Wright Field

The Air Corps adopted a new color scheme for painting its aircraft in 1927, heretofore paintedolive drab.The wings and tails of aircraft were paintedchrome yellow,with the words "U.S. ARMY" displayed in large black lettering on the undersurface of the lower wings. Tail rudders were painted with a vertical dark blue band at the rudder hinge and 13 alternating red-and-white horizontal stripes trailing. The painting of fuselages olive drab was changed to blue in the early 1930s, and this motif continued until late 1937, when all new aircraft (now all-metal) were left unpainted except for national markings.

B-6A of 1st Bomb Squadron, 9th BG, 1935. The dual stripes on the fuselage denote the aircraft of the squadron commander.

P-26A in livery of 19th Pursuit Squadron, 18th PG, Wheeler Field, Hawaii

Most pursuit fighters before 1935 were of theCurtiss P-1 Hawk(1926–1930) andBoeing P-12(1929–1935) families, and before the 1934 introduction of the all-metal monoplane, most front-line bombers were canvas-and-wood variants of theradial enginedKeystone LB-6(60 LB-5A, LB-6 and LB-7 bombers) andB-3A(127 B-3A, B-4A, B-5, and B-6A bombers) designs.Between 1927 and 1934, theCurtiss O-1 Falconwas the most numerous of the 19 different types and series of observation craft and its A-3 variant the most numerous of the attack planes that fulfilled the observation/close support role designated by the General Staff as the primary mission of the Air Corps.

Transport aircraft used during the first ten years of the Air Corps were of largelytrimotordesign, such as theAtlantic-Fokker C-2and theFord C-3,and were procured in such small numbers (66 total) that they were doled out one airplane to a base. As their numbers and utility declined, they were replaced by a series of 50 twin-engine and single-engine small transports and used for staff duties. Pilot training was conducted between 1927 and 1937 in theConsolidated PT-3trainer, followed by theStearman PT-13and variants after 1937.

By 1933 the Air Corps expanded to a tactical strength of 50 squadrons: 21 pursuit, 13 observation, 12 bombardment, and 4 attack. All were understrength in aircraft and men, particularly officers, which resulted in most being commanded by junior officers (commonly first lieutenants)instead of by majors as authorized.The last open-cockpit fighter used by the Air Corps, theBoeing P-26 Peashooter,came into service in 1933 and bridged the gap between the biplane and more modern fighters.

The Air Corps was called upon in early 1934 to deliver mail in the wake of theAir Mail scandal,involving thepostmaster generaland heads of the airlines. Despite an embarrassing performance that resulted from numerous crashes and 13 fatalities and was deemed a "fiasco" in the media, investigating boards in 1933–1934recommended organizational and modernization changes that again set the Air Corps on the path to autonomy and eventual separation from the Army. A force of 2,320 aircraft was recommended by the Drum Board,and authorized by Congress in June 1936, but appropriations to build up the force were denied by the administration until 1939, when the probability of war became apparent. Instead, the Air Corps inventory actually declined to 855 total aircraft in 1936, a year after the creation of GHQ Air Force, which by itself was recommended to have a strength of 980.

The most serious fallout from the Air Mail fiasco was the retirement under fire of Major GeneralBenjamin Fouloisas Chief of Air Corps. Soon after theRoosevelt administrationplaced the blame on him for the Air Corps' failures, he was investigated by a congressional subcommittee alleging corruption in aircraft procurement. The matter resulted in an impasse between committee chairmanWilliam N. Rogersand Secretary of WarGeorge Dernbefore being sent to the Army's Inspector General, who ruled largely in favor of Foulois. Rogers continued to severely criticize Foulois through the summer of 1935, threatening future Air Corps appropriations, and despite public support by Dern for the embattled chief, the administration was close to firing Foulois for his perceived attitude as a radical airman and his public criticisms of the administration during the controversy. He retired in December 1935 for the good of the service.

The Roosevelt administration began a search for his replacement in September 1935, narrowing the choice to two of the three assistant chiefs,Henry Conger PrattandOscar Westover.Pratt appeared to have the superior credentials, but he had been in charge of aircraft procurement during the Foulois years and was looked upon warily by Dern as possibly being another Mitchell or Foulois. Westover was chosen because he was the philosophical opposite of the two insurgent airmen in all respects, being a "team player".

The open insurgency between 1920 and 1935 of airmen foreseeing a need for an independent air force in order to develop fully the potential of airpower had cost the careers of two of its near-legendary lights, Foulois and Mitchell, and nearly cost the reputation of two others, Pratt andHenry H. Arnold.In terms of the principle of civilian control of the military in peacetime, their tactics and behavior were clearly inappropriate. The political struggle had temporarily alienated supporters in Congress, had been counterproductive of the development of the Air Corps in the short run, and had hardened the opposition of an already antagonistic General Staff. But through their mistakes and repeated rebuffs, the airmen had learned what they were lacking: proof for the argument that the Air Corps could perform a unique mission—strategic bombardment—and the real threat of another world war would soon reverse their fortunes.

Doctrinal development

Strategic bombardment in roles and missions

"The Naval Air Force will be based on the fleet and move with it as an important element in solving the primary missions confronting the fleet. The Army Air Forces will be land-based and employed as an essential element to the Army in the performance of its mission to defend the coasts at home and in our overseas possessions, thus assuring the fleet absolute freedom of action without any responsibility for coast defense."

Gen. Douglas MacArthur, Adm. William V. Pratt, 7 January 1931

In March 1928, commenting on the lack of survivability in combat of his unit'sKeystone LB-7andMartin NBS-1bombers, Lt. Col.Hugh J. Knerr,commander of the2nd Bombardment GroupatLangley Field,Virginia,recommended that the Air Corps adopt two types of all-metal monoplane bombers, a short-range day bomber and a long-range night bomber. Instructors at theAir Corps Tactical School(ACTS), also then at Langley, took the concept one step further in March 1930 by recommending that the types instead belightandheavy,the latter capable of long range carrying a heavy bomb load that could also be used during daylight.

The Air Corps in January 1931 "got its foot in the door" for developing a mission for which only it would have capability, while at the same time creating a need for technological advancement of its equipment.Chief of Naval OperationsAdmiralWilliam V. Prattwanted approval of his proposition that all naval aviation including land-based aircraft was by definition tied to carrier-based fleet operations. Pratt reached an agreement with new Army Chief of StaffDouglas MacArthurthat the Air Corps would assume responsibility for coastal defense (traditionally a primary function of the Army but a secondary, wartime function of the Navy) beyond the range of the Army's Coast Artillery guns, ending the Navy's apparent duplication of effort in coastal air operations. The agreement, intended as a modification of the Joint Action statement on coastal defense issued in 1926, was not endorsed by the Joint Army-Navy Boardand never had authority other than a personal agreement between the two heads of service. Though the Navy repudiated the statement when Pratt retired in 1934, the Air Corps clung to the mission, and provided itself with the basis for development of long-range bombers and creating new doctrine to employ them.

The formulation of theories ofstrategic bombinggave new impetus to the argument for an independent air force. Strategic or long-range bombardment was intended to destroy an enemy's industry and war-making potential, and only an independent service would have a free hand to do so. But despite what it perceived as "obstruction" from the War Department, much of which was attributable to a shortage of funds, the Air Corps made great strides during the 1930s. A doctrine emerged that stressed precision bombing of industrial targets by heavily armed long-range aircraft.

This doctrine resulted because of several factors. The Air Corps Tactical School moved in July 1931 toMaxwell Field,Alabama,where it taught a 36-week course for junior and mid-career officers that included military aviation theory. The Bombardment Section, under the direction of its chief, MajorHarold L. George,became influential in the development of doctrine and its dissemination throughout the Air Corps. Nine of its instructors became known throughout the Air Corps as the "Bomber Mafia",eight of whom (including George) went on to be generals during World War II. Conversely, pursuit tacticians, primarily Capt.Claire Chennault,Chief of the school's Pursuit Section, found their influence waning because of repeated performance failures of pursuit aviation. Finally, the doctrine represented the Air Corps' attempt to develop autonomy from the General Staff, which enforced subordination of the air arm by limiting it to support of ground forces and defense of United States territory.

Technological advances in bombers

"Gear down" test flight of the Boeing Y1B-9 bomber in 1932. At the time it was faster than any existing pursuit plane.

New bomber types under development clearly outperformed new pursuit types, particularly in speed and altitude, then considered the primary defenses against interception. In both 1932 and 1933, large-scale maneuvers found fighters unable to climb to altitude quickly enough to intercept attackingB-9andB-10prototypes, a failure so complete that Westover, following the 1933 maneuvers, actually proposed elimination of pursuits altogether.

1933 was a pivotal year in the advancement of aviation technology in which the all-metal airplane came of age, "practically overnight" in the words of one historian, because of the availability of the first practicalvariable-pitch propeller.Coupled with "best weight" design of airframes, the controllable pitch propeller resulted in an immediate doubling of speeds and operating ranges without decreasing aircraft weights or increasing engine horsepower, exemplified by the civilDouglas DC-1transport and the military Martin B-10 bomber.

The B-10 featured innovations that became standard internationally for the next decade: an all-metal low wing monoplane, closed cockpits, rotating gun turrets, retractable landing gear, internal bomb bay,high-lift devicesand full engine cowlings.The B-10 proved to be so superior that as its 14 operational test models were delivered in 1934 they were fed into the Air Corps mail operation, and despite some glitches caused by pilot unfamiliarity with the innovations,were a bright spot. The first action to repair the damaged image of the Air Corps involved the movement of ten YB-10s from Bolling Field to Alaska, ostensibly for an airfield survey, but timed to coincide with the release of the Baker Board's report in July.

The successful development of the B-10 and subsequent orders for more than 150 (including its B-12 variant) continued the hegemony of the bomber within the Air Corps that resulted in a feasibility study for a 35-ton 4-engined bomber (theBoeing XB-15). While it was later found to be unsuitable for combat because the power of existing engines was inadequate for its weight, the XB-15 led to the design of the smaller Model 299, later to become theBoeing B-17 Flying Fortress,whose first flight was at the end of July 1935. By that time the Air Corps had two projects in place for the development of longer-ranged bombers, Project A for a bomber with a ferry range of 5,000 miles (8,000 km), and Project D, for one of a range of up to 10,000 miles (16,000 km).In June 1936 the Air Corps requested 11 B-15s and 50 B-17s for reinforcing hemispheric defense forces in Hawaii, Alaska, and Panama. The request was rejected on the basis that there were no strategic requirements for aircraft of such capabilities.

General Staff resistance to Air Corps doctrine

The Army and Navy, both cognizant of the continuing movement within the Air Corps for independence, cooperated to resist it. On 11 September 1935, the Joint Board, at the behest of the Navy and with the concurrence of MacArthur, issued a new "Joint Action Statement" that once again asserted the limited role of the Air Corps as an auxiliary to the "mobile Army" in all its missions, including coastal defense.The edict was issued with the intent of again shoving an upstart Air Corps back into its place. However, the bomber advocates interpreted its language differently, concluding that the Air Corps could conduct long-range reconnaissance, attack approaching fleets, reinforce distant bases, and attack enemy air bases, all in furthering its mission to prevent an air attack on America.

A month later (15 October 1935), the General Staff released a revision of the doctrinal guide for the Air Corps, training regulation TR 440-15Employment of the Air Forces of the Army.A year earlier MacArthur had changed TR 440-15 to clarify "the Air Corps's place in the scheme of national defense and... (to do away with)... misconceptions and interbranch prejudices."The General Staff characterized its latest revision as a "compromise" with airpower advocates, to mitigate public criticism of the Joint Action Statement, but the newest revision parroted the anti-autonomy conclusions of the Drum and Baker Boards, and reasserted its long-held position (and that of the Secretary Dern)that auxiliary support of the ground forces was the primary mission of the Air Corps.TR 440-15 did acknowledge some doctrinal principles asserted by the ACTS (including the necessity of destroying an enemy's air forces and concentrating air forces against primary objectives) and recognized that future wars would probably entail some missions "beyond the sphere of influence of the Ground Forces" (strategic bombardment), but it did not attach any importance to prioritization of targets, weakening its effectiveness as doctrine.The Air Corps in general assented to the changes, as it did to other compromises of the period, as acceptable for the moment.TR 440-15 remained the doctrinal position of the Air Corps until it was superseded by the first Air Corps Field Manual, FM 1–5Employment of Aviation of the Army,on 15 April 1940.

In the fall of 1937, theArmy War College's course on the use of airpower reiterated the General Staff position and taught that airpower was of limited value when employed independently. Using attaché reports from bothSpainandEthiopia,and endorsed by a senior Air Corps instructor, Col.Byron Q. Jones,the course declared that the Flying Fortress concept had "died in Spain", and that airpower was useful mainly as "long range artillery." Air Corps officers in the G-3 Department of the General Staff pointed out that Jones' conclusions were inconsistent with the revised TR 440-15, but their views were dismissed by Deputy Chief of Staff Maj. Gen.Stanley Embickwith the comment: "No doctrine is sacrosanct, and of all military doctrines, that of the Air Corps should be the last to be so regarded."

At the same time, the General Staff ordered studies from all the service branches to develop drafts for the coming field manuals. The Air Corps Board, a function of the ACTS, submitted a draft in September 1938 that included descriptions of independent air operations, strategic air attacks, and air action against naval forces, all of which the General Staff rejected in March 1939. Instead, it ordered that the opening chapter of the Air Corps manual be a doctrinal statement developed by the G-3 that "left little doubt" that the General Staff's intention was "to develop and employ aviation in support of ground forces." The Air Corps Board, on the orders of Arnold, developed a secret study for "defense of theMonroe Doctrine"that recommended development of long-range, high altitude, high-speed aircraft for bombardment and reconnaissance to accomplish that defense.

The War Department, seeking to stifle procurement of the B-17 while belatedly recognizing that coordinated air-ground support had been long neglected, decided that it would order only two-engined "light" bombers in fiscal years 1939 through 1941. It also rejected further advancement of Project A, the development program for a very long range bomber.In collaboration with the Navy, the Joint Board (whose senior member was Army Chief of Staff Gen.Malin Craig) on 29 June 1938 issued a ruling that it could foresee no use for a long-range bomber in future conflict.As a direct result, the last planned order of long-range bombers (67 B-17s) was cancelled by Craigand a moratorium on further development of them was put into effect by restricting R&D funding to medium and light bombers.This policy would last less than a year, as it went against not only the trends of technological development, but against the geopolitical realities of coming war.In August 1939 the Army's research and development program for 1941 was modified with the addition of nearly five million dollars to buy five long-range bombers for experimental purposes, resulting on 10 November 1939 in the request by Arnold of the developmental program that would create theBoeing B-29 Superfortress,which was approved on 2 December.

Between 1930 and 1938 the Air Corps had obtained a mission in coastal defense that justified both the creation of a centralized strike force and the development of four-engined bombers, and over the resistance of the General Stafflobbiedfor another mission, strategic bombardment, with which it could persuasively argue for independence from the Army.The cost of the General Staff's resistance in terms of preparedness had been severe, however. Its policies had resulted in the acquisition of obsolete aircraft as first-line equipment, stifled design development in the private sector of better types, retarded the development of radar and ordnance, and handicapped training, doctrine, and offensive organization by reneging on commitments to acquire the B-17. "From October 1935 until 30 June 1939, the Air Corps requested 206 B-17's and 11 B-15's. Yet because of cancellations and reductions of these requests by the War Department, 14 four-engine planes were delivered to the air force up to the outbreak of World War II in September 1939."

GHQ Air Force

A major step toward creation of a separate air force occurred on 1 March 1935 with the activation of a centralized, air force-level command headed by an aviator answering directly to the ArmyChief of Staff.Called theGeneral Headquarters Air Force,the organization had existed in Army planning since 1924 as a subordinate element of Army General Headquarters, which would be activated to control all Army units in case of war mobilization.In anticipation of military intervention in Cuba in 1933,the headquarters had been created on 1 October but not staffed.The Drum Board of 1933 had first endorsed the concept, but as a means of reintegrating the Air Corps into control by the General Staff, in effect reining it in.

Among the recommendations of theBaker Board,established in the wake of the Air Mail scandal, was that the proposals of the Drum Board be adopted: an increase in strength to 2,320 aircraft and establishment of GHQ Air Force as a permanent peacetime tactical organization, both to ameliorate the pressures for a separate air force and to exploit emerging capabilities in airpower.In the absence of a general headquarters (i.e. peacetime), GHQ Air Force would report to the General Staff. The War Plans Division of the Army reacted to the recommendations of the Baker Board by insisting that men and modern equipment for seven army divisionsbe procured before any increase in the Air Corps was begun, and opposed any immediate attempt to bring the Air Corps up to the 1,800 plane-strength first authorized in 1926, for fear of antagonizing the Navy.President Roosevelt approved an open-ended program to increase strength to 2,320 aircraft (albeit without any proviso for funding) in August 1934, and Secretary Dern approved the activation of GHQ Air Force in December 1934.

GHQ Air Force took control of all combat air units in the United States from the jurisdiction ofcorps areacommanders, where it had resided since 1920, and organized them operationally into a strike force of three wings.The GHQ Air Force remained small in comparison to European air forces. On its first day of existence, the command consisted of 60 bombers, 42 attack aircraft, 146 pursuits, and 24 transports, amounting to 40% of strength in thetables of organization.Administratively it organized the forces into four geographical districts (which later became the first four numbered air forces) that paralleled the four field army headquarters created in 1933.

The General Staff perceived its creation as a means of lessening Air Corps autonomy, not increasing it, however, and GHQ Air Force was a "coordinate component" equal to the Air Corps, not subject to its control. The organizations reported separately to the Chief of Staff, the Air Corps as the service element of the air arm, and GHQAF as the tactical element. However, all GHQ Air Force's members, along with members of units stationed overseas and under the control of local ground commanders, remained part of the Air Corps. This dual status and division of authority hampered the development of Air Corps for the next six years, as it had the Air Service during World War I, and was not overcome until the necessity of expanding the force occurred with the onset of World War II.The commanding general of GHQ Air Force, Maj. Gen.Frank M. Andrews,clashed philosophically with Westover over the direction in which the air arm was heading, adding to the difficulties, with Andrews in favor of autonomy and Westover not only espousing subordination to the Army chain of command but aggressively enforcing his prohibitions of any commentary opposed to current policy. Andrews, by virtue of being out from Westover's control, had picked up the mantle of the radical airmen, and Westover soon found himself on "the wrong side of history" as far as the future of the Air Corps was concerned.

Lines of authority were also blurred as GHQ Air Force controlled only combat flying units within the continental United States. The Air Corps was responsible for training, aircraft development, doctrine, and supply, while the ground forces corps area commanders still controlled installations and the personnel manning them.An example of the difficulties this arrangement imposed on commanders was that while the commander of GHQ Air Force was responsible for the discipline of his command, he had nocourt martialauthority over his personnel, which was retained by the corps area commander. Base commanders of Air Corps installations reported to as many as four different higher echelons.The issue of control of bases was ameliorated in 1936 when GHQAF bases were exempted from corps area authority on recommendation of the Inspector General's Department, but in November 1940 it was restored again to Corps Area control when Army General Headquarters was activated.

Interception of theRex.The navigator for the mission was 1st Lt.Curtis LeMay.

In January 1936, the Air Corps contracted withBoeingfor thirteenY1B-17 Flying Fortressprototypes, enough to equip one squadron for operational testing and a thirteenth aircraft for stress testing, with deliveries made from January to August 1937. The cost of the aircraft disturbedSecretary of WarHarry Woodring,who denied requests for further purchases, so that although the air arm embraced strategic bombing as its primary doctrine after the creation of GHQ Air Force, by 1938 there were still only thirteen strategic bombers on hand. On 18 March 1938 Secretary Woodring implemented a plan that would have included the purchase of 144 four-engine bombers but approval was reversed in July when the moratorium against the long-range bomber program was imposed by the Joint Board.The purchase of 67 B-17s (five squadrons) in FY 1940 as an increment of the Woodring program, using carryover funds, was cancelled by Craig.

The moratorium also resulted from the enmity of the Navy incurred by the Air Corps on 12 May 1938 when it widely publicized theinterception of the Italian ocean linerRexby three B-17s while it was 610 nautical miles (1,100 km) off-shore of New York City.Possibly under pressure from the Navy, Craig placed a limit of 100 nautical miles (190 km) on all future off-shore flights by the Army. The services together issued a revised Joint Action statement in November reasserting that the mission of the Air Corps in coastal defense was only for supporting the Navy if called upon to do so, while simultaneously authorizing for the Navy the long-range shore-based coastal patrol mission denied the Air Corps. Westover, who stridently opposed cancellation of the Woodring program, was killed in an air crash on 21 September 1938 and was succeeded by Arnold.

Modernization and expansion of the force

New aircraft

Main article:List of military aircraft of the United States

The Air Corps tested and employed a profusion of pursuit, observation, and bomber aircraft during its 15-year history. The advent of the new generation of monoplanes and the emergence of strategic bombardment doctrine led to many designs in the mid and late 1930s that were still in use when the United States enteredWorld War II.Among the key technology items developed were oxygen and cabin pressurization systems, enginesuperchargers(systems essential for high-altitude combat), advanced radio communication systems, such asVHFradios, and theNorden bombsight.

Douglas C-39 transport

As a further consequence of the Air Mail scandal, the Baker Board reviewed the performance of Air Corps aircraft and recognized that civilian aircraft were far superior to planes developed solely to Air Corps specifications. Following up on its recommendation, the Air Corps purchased and tested aDouglas DC-2as the XC-32, which subsequently became the flying headquarters of Gen. Andrews.The DC-2 so exceeded Air Corps specifications that 17 were purchased under the designation C-33 to equip the first permanent transport unit, the 10th Transport Group,activated in June 1937 atPatterson FieldinOhio.In 1939 the Air Corps recognized that it might soon require large numbers of modern air transports for use in war and purchased 35 DC-2/DC-3hybrids, designated the C-39.After the fall of France, the Air Corps in September 1940 ordered 200 untried and unprovenCurtiss C-46 Commandosfrom Curtiss-Wright and 545Douglas C-47 Skytrains,the forerunner of the more than 10,000 C-47s and related variants that served in World War II.

Even with the doctrine of strategic bombardment as its priority, the Air Corps belatedly sought to modernize its tactical combat force under GHQ Air Force, bringing into service theNorthrop A-17andDouglas B-18 Boloin 1936, theSeversky P-35in 1937, and theCurtiss P-36in 1938. All of these aircraft were obsolete by the time they came into service, and the outbreak of war in Europe spurred development of more capable types. By October 1940, over a year before the United States was drawn into the war, every piston-driven single-seat fighter eventually used by the USAAF during World War II was in flight test except the P-47.However, the press of the enormous tasks confronting the Air Corps and the primacy of strategic bombing doctrine meant that development of a long-range capability for these new single-engined fighters was not undertaken until combat losses of bombers forced the issue.

Notable fighters developed during the late 1930s and early 1940s were theBell P-39 Airacobra(first flown April 1938),Curtiss P-40 Warhawk(October 1938),Lockheed P-38 Lightning(January 1939),North American P-51 Mustang(October 1940), andRepublic P-47 Thunderbolt(May 1941). Technological development of fighters occurred so rapidly that by December 1941 both the P-39 and P-40 were approaching obsolescence, even though both had been in production less than 18 months.Bombers developed during this period were theDouglas A-20 Havoc(first flown October 1938),North American B-25 Mitchell(January 1939),Consolidated B-24 Liberator(December 1939), andMartin B-26 Marauder(November 1940).Except for the B-24, P-47, and P-51, all of these had production deliveries that began before the AAF came into being in June 1941. Three other long-range bombers began development during this period, though only mock-ups were produced before World War II: the B-29 (study begun in 1938), theConsolidated B-32 Dominator(June 1940), and theConvair B-36 Peacemaker(April 1941).

Expansion of the Air Corps

In a special message to Congress on 12 January 1939,President Roosevelt advised that the threat of a new war made the recommendations of the Baker Board inadequate for American defense and requested approval of a "minimum 3,000-plane increase" for the Air Corps.On 3 April 1939, Congress allocated the $300 million requested by Roosevelt for expansion of the Air Corps, half of which was dedicated to purchasing planes to raise the inventory from 2,500 to 5,500 airplanes, and the other half for new personnel, training facilities, and bases.Orders for B-17s, which had been held in abeyance since June 1938, resumed in the summer of 1939 with incremental deliveries of 39B-17Bsin 1939–40, 18B-17Csin 1940, and 42B-17Dsin the first quarter of 1941.The first large order for heavy bomber production, 512 combat-capableB-17Es,was placed in July 1940.

In June 1939 the Kilner Boardrecommended several types of bombers needed to fulfill the Air Corps mission that included aircraft having tactical radii of both 2,000 and 3,000 miles (revised in 1940 to 4,000). Chief of Staff Craig, long an impediment to Air Corps ambitions but nearing retirement, came around to the Air Corps viewpoint after Roosevelt's views became public. Likewise, the War Department General Staff reversed itself and concurred in the requirements, ending the brief moratorium on bomber development and paving the way for work on the B-29.

Over the winter of 1938–1939, Arnold transferred a group of experienced officers headed by Lt. Col.Carl A. Spaatzto his headquarters as an unofficial air staffto lay out a plan that would increase the Air Corps to 50,000 men by June 1941. The expansion program of the Air Corps was characterized by repeated upward revision of goals for increasing aircraft production, combat unit totals, the training of new personnel, and construction of new bases. New combat groups were created by detaching cadres from the existing 15 Regular groups to provide the core of the new units, with each older group providing the basis for an average of three new groups. Graduates of an expanded flight training program filled out the new groups and replaced the experienced personnel transferred from the older groups, resulting in a steady decline in the overall level of experience in the operational units.In essence, groups "self-trained"to proficiency standards set by training directives from the GHQAF.Unable to keep pace with the revised programs for expansion of combat groups, unit tactical training for all groups suffered from a shortage of equipment (particularly combat aircraft), an unavoidable preoccupation with administrative details during organization, and a lack of training facilities, especially bombing and gunnery ranges, leaving a "vast gap between the desired status of training in combat units and their actual status immediately prior to... Pearl Harbor."

The initial25-Group Programfor air defense of the hemisphere, developed in April 1939, called for 50,000 men (12,000 pilots). Its ten new combat groups were activated on 1 February 1940.Following the successfulGerman invasion of France and the Low Countriesin May 1940, a54-Group Programwas approved on 12 July,although funding approval could not keep pace and only 25 additional groups were activated on 15 January 1941.An84-Group Program,with an eventual goal of 400,000 men by 30 June 1942, was approved on 14 March 1941, although not publicly announced until 23 October 1941.In addition to unit training and funding problems, these programs were hampered by delays in acquiring the new infrastructure necessary to support them, sites for which had to be identified, negotiated and approved before construction. The General Staff again was unwilling to assign any of this work to the Air Corps, and instead detailed it to the overtaxedQuartermaster Corps.When the QMC failed to put new air bases in place in either an efficient or timely manner, theCorps of Engineerswas then assigned the task, although it continued to implement the policies already in place.

By the time the Europeans went to war in September 1939, the Americans first expansion lagged so distantly in relation to its goals in manpower and tactical aircraft that Andrews described the Air Corps as a "fifth rate air force."Of its 1,500 combat aircraft, only 800 were rated as first-line, 700 of which became obsolete by December 1941.By comparison, the RAF had 1,750 first-line aircraft and the German Luftwaffe 3,750. Moreover, the Luftwaffe had more personnel on the staffs of its headquarters and air ministry than were in the entire Air Corps (26,000). The first-line aircraft that would soon be considered obsolete were the B-18, A-17, and P-36. The only first-line aircraft in 1939 that remained so during World War II was the B-17, and it had to be significantly modernized before it was combat-capable.

The acceleration of the expansion programs resulted in an Air Corps of 156 installations of all types and 100,000 men by the end of 1940.Twenty civilian flight schools and eight technical training schools were contracted to provide additional training facilities, and on 10 August 1940,Pan American Airwayswas contracted to provide meteorological and navigation training atCoral Gables,Florida, until military schools could be established.

The first delivery of B-17Es took place in November 1941.Two-thirds of all Air Corps officers were second lieutenants whose flying experience consisted of their flight training.The Air Corps had 17 major installations and four depots, and most of its 76 airfields were co-located at civil airports or were small strips on Army posts.

Procurement of aircraft remained a significant problem for the Air Corps until the eve of war, because of diversion of production to the Allies. On 16 May 1940, with the fall of France imminent, President Roosevelt delivered an address to Congress calling for a supplemental appropriation of nearly a billion dollars and the manufacture of 50,000 aircraft a year for the armed forces (36,500 of them for the Air Corps). Eighteen months later, in November 1941 (immediately before the U.S. entered the war), the AAF still had only 3,304 combat aircraft (only 1,024 overseas), and 7,024 non-combat aircraft, of which 6,594 were trainers.Its command staff increased in October 1940 to 24 with the addition of 15 new general officer billets.By June 1941, when the Air Corps became part of the AAF, it had 33 general officers, including four serving in observer roles to theRoyal Air Force.

Dissolution of the Air Corps

Unity of Command difficulties

Arnold, at the direction of President Roosevelt in January 1939, oversaw an expansion of the Air Corps that doubled it in size from 15 to 30 groups by the end of 1940. The separation of the combat organization (GHQ Air Force) from the logistic organization (Air Corps) created serious problems of coordination nearly identical to theDivision of Military Aeronautics/Bureau of Aircraft Production dual-authoritymess of World War I. In March 1939, with the replacement of Andrews as commander of GHQ Air Force by Maj. Gen.Delos C. Emmons,Arnold was nominally assigned to "supervise" the tactical force but this did not resolve the divisions in command. On 5 October 1940, Arnold drew up a proposal to reorganize the air arm along functional lines, creating an air staff, unifying the various organizations under one commander, and giving it autonomy with the ground and supply forces—a plan which was eventually adopted in March 1942—and submitted it to Chief of StaffGeorge C. Marshall,but it was immediately opposed by the General Staff in all respects.

Instead, the two organizations were separated again by a directive from Marshall on 19 November 1940. Army General Headquarters was activated (more than five years after the activation of "its" air force) and GHQ AF placed under it, even though Army GHQ had been activated as a training organization.Its logistical and training structure were again out of its hands, this time under the direct control of the chief of staff, and its airfields again came under control of the corps commanders. Maj. Gen.George H. Brett,acting Chief of the Air Corps, denounced the plan as "disastrous in war".The problems already existing due to the lack of unity of command were exacerbated by the assignment of GHQ Air Force to Army GHQ. Emmons, who had begun his tour junior to Arnold, was promoted tolieutenant generalto make him equal to the commanders of the field armies also controlled by Army GHQ. This forced him to report to and act under an inferior in rank (both Arnold and Brett weremajor generals).

As a compromise on all these issues, Marshall made Arnold "Acting Deputy Chief of Staff for Air." Although the Air Corps found the compromise unsatisfactory, this provisional position on the general staff did enable him to coordinate the two sections of the air arm until the organizational problems were repaired. Even in the short run, however, coordination proved to be no substitute for unity of command.

Creation of the Army Air Forces

In the spring of 1941, the combat successes of the BritishRoyal Air Forceand the GermanLuftwaffeunder centralized control made clear that the fragmenting of authority in the American air arm had resulted in a dangerous lack of clear channels of command. After a joint U.S.-British strategic planning agreement (ABC-1) rebuffed the long-held argument that the Air Corps had no wartime mission except support of ground forces,the War Department revised Army Regulation 95-5 on 20 June in an attempt to end the divisions without legislative intervention by Congress. In creating theArmy Air Forceswith the Air Corps and the Air Force Combat Command (a redesignation of General Headquarters Air Force) as its major components, the War Department also authorized an Air Staff to manage planning and execution of expansion of the air arm and named Arnold as Chief of the Army Air Forces. It did not, however, end the dual chain of command difficulties, as air units of Air Force Combat Command still reported to Army GHQ as well as Headquarters AAF.Two further attempts by Arnold to implement his reorganization were again rejected by the WDGS in October and November.

At this stage, support of airpower in public opinion reached unprecedented highs, increasing pressures from outside the military for an independent air arm with representation in the cabinet.Arnold made a decision to postpone any attempts to exploit the opportunity to push for an independent Air Force. Assured of a free hand by Marshall, Arnold thought that it would "be a serious mistake to change the existing setup" in the midst of the crucial expansion effort,which in less than five years would be more than 100 times its June 1939 size in personnel (much of it highly trained technically) alone. By November, however, the division of authority within the Army as a whole caused by the activation of Army GHQ prompted Marshall to assert that he had "the poorest command post in the Army." Defense commands, particularly those affecting air defense, had in Marshall's words showed a "disturbing failure to follow through on orders."Confronted with Marshall's dissatisfaction with Army GHQ, the General Staff reversed its opposition. Marshall appointed an Air Corps officer, Brig. Gen.Joseph T. McNarney,to chair a "War Department Reorganization Committee" within the War Plans Division, using Arnold's plan as a blueprint.

Based on the recommendations of McNarney's committee, Roosevelt issuedExecutive Order 9082,which changed Arnold's title toCommanding General, Army Air Forceseffective 9 March 1942, making him co-equal with the commanding generals of the other components of theArmy of the United States.On that date, War Department Circular 59 formalized the changes, abolishing Army GHQ and organizing the Army into three autonomous components: the Army Air Forces, theArmy Ground Forces,and theServices of Supply,each with a commanding general reporting to the Chief of Staff. The Office of Chief of Air Corps (OCAC) was abolished (as was Air Force Combat Command) and the functions of the Air Corps transferred to the AAF, reducing the status of the Air Corps to acombat armclassification.

The Congress did not disestablish the Army Air Corps as a combat arm until 26 July 1947, when the National Security Act of 1947 (61Stat.502) became law. Most members of the Army Air Forces also remained members of the Air Corps. In May 1945, 88 percent of officers serving in the Army Air Forces were commissioned in the Air Corps, while 82 percent of enlisted members assigned to AAF units and bases had the Air Corps as their combat arm branch.

Organization of the Air Corps

Army Air Corps, 1 March 1935

SOURCES: Maurer Maurer,Aviation in the U.S. Army, 1919–1939(Appendix 5), andAir Force Combat Units of World War II,both USAF Historical Research Center

This list of units is a snapshot of the Air Corps on the date of activation of the General Headquarters Air Force. Except for the assignment of four reconnaissance (formerly observation) squadrons to the 1st and 2nd Wings in September 1936 for attachment to their heavy bombardment groups,and the May 1937 exchange of the 12th Observation Group (inactivated) for the10th Transport Group(activated), the organization of the Air Corps shown here remained essentially unchanged until activation of the first expansion groups on 1 February 1940.

General Headquarters Air Force

(Maj. Gen.Frank M. Andrews,Langley Field,Virginia)

21st Airship Group,Scott Field,Illinois

9th Airship Squadron, Scott Field

19th Airship Squadron, Langley Field

Boeing P-26A Peashooterof 34th Pursuit Squadron, 17th PG 1934–1935

1st Wing

(Brig. Gen.Henry H. Arnold,March Field,California)

7th Bombardment Group,Hamilton Field,California

9th,11th,&31st Bombardment Squadrons

17th Attack Group,March Field, California

34th,73d,&95th Attack Squadrons

19th Bombardment Group,March Field, California

23d,30th,32d,&72nd Bombardment Squadrons(23d & 72d BS based in Hawaii)

Martin B-12A (variant of theB-10) of 31st Bomb Squadron, 7th BG, Hamilton Field, California

2nd Wing

(Brig. Gen.H. Conger Pratt,Langley Field,Virginia)

37th Attack Squadron(attached to 8th Pursuit Group)

1st Pursuit Group,Selfridge Field,Michigan

17th,27th,&94th Pursuit Squadrons

2nd Bombardment Group,Langley Field, Virginia

20th,49th,54th, 2nd Bombardment Squadron Detrick Field, and96th Bombardment Squadrons(54th detached to Air Corps Tactical School)

8th Pursuit Group,Langley Field, Virginia

33d,35th,&36th Pursuit Squadrons(37th Attack Squadronattached)

9th Bombardment Group,Mitchel Field,New York

1st,5th,14th,&99th Bombardment Squadrons

Curtiss A-12 Shrikeof the 13th Attack Squadron, 3d AG, Barksdale Field, Louisiana

3rd Wing

(Col. Gerald C. Brant,Barksdale Field,Louisiana)

3d Attack Group,Barksdale Field, Louisiana

8th,13th,&90th Attack Squadrons(51st Attack Squadron detached to Air Corps Tactical School)

20th Pursuit Group,Barksdale Field, Louisiana

55th,77th,&79th Pursuit Squadrons(87th Pursuit Squadrondetached to Air Corps Tactical School)

PT-13, Air Corps primary trainer

O-38F

Other flying units

Second Corps Area, United States Army,Mitchel Field,New York

97th Observation Squadron

Sixth Corps Area, United States Army,Scott Field,Illinois

15th Observation Squadron(Attached)

Eighth Corps Area, United States Army,Fort Sam Houston,Texas

12th Observation Group,Brooks Field,Texas

12th Observation Squadron

22d Observation Squadron

88th Observation Squadron

Ninth Corps Area, United States Army,Crissy Field,California

91st Observation Squadron

Air Corps Advanced Flying School,Kelly Field,Texas

40th Attack,41st Observation,42nd Bombardment,43d Pursuit Squadrons

39th School Squadron

Air Corps Primary Flying School,Randolph Field,Texas

46th, 47th, 52nd, and 53rd School Squadrons

Air Corps Tactical School,Maxwell Field,Alabama

51st Attack, 54th Bombardment,86th Observation,87th Pursuit Squadrons

Air Corps Technical School,Chanute Field,Illinois

48th Pursuit Squadron

Rockwell Air Depot,Rockwell Field,California

4th Transport Squadron(Activated 8 July 1935)

P-12Eof 6th Pursuit Squadron, 18th PG 1935–1938, Wheeler Field, Hawaii

Overseas units

4th Composite Group,Clark Field,Luzon

2nd Observation,3d Pursuit&28th Bombardment Squadrons

18th Composite Wing

(Lt. Col.Delos Emmons,Fort Shafter,Hawaii)

5th Composite Group,Luke Field,Hawaii

26th Attack,4th&50th Observation Squadrons

18th Pursuit Group,Wheeler Field,Hawaii

6th,19th Pursuit Squadrons

19th Composite Wing

(Lt. Col. William C. McChord,Albrook Field,Panama Canal Zone)

6th Composite Group,Albrook Field, Canal Zone

25th Bombardment,7th&44th Observation Squadrons

16th Pursuit Group,Albrook Field, Canal Zone

24th,29th,74th&78th Pursuit Squadrons

Annual strength

Strength (i.e., number of personnel) as of 30 June of each year.

Year	Strength
1927	9,979
1928	10,518
1929	12,080
1930	13,305
1931	14,485
1932	14,650
1933	14,817
1934	15,621
1935	15,945
1936	16,863
1937	18,572
1938	20,196
1939	22,387
1940	51,185
1941	152,125

GeneralsBenjamin D. Foulois,Assistant Chief of Air Corps (left);James E. Fechet,Chief of Air Corps; andH. Conger Pratt,Chief of Materiel Division, in 1931.

Chiefs of Air Corps

No.	Portrait	Name (Birth–Death)	Term of office
			Took office	Left office	Time in office
1		Major general Mason M. Patrick (1863–1942)	2 July 1926	13 December 1927	1 year, 164 days
2		Major general James E. Fechet (1877–1948)	14 December 1927	19 December 1931	4 years, 6 days
3		Major general Benjamin D. Foulois (1879–1967)	20 December 1931	21 December 1935	4 years, 1 day
4		Major general Oscar M. Westover (1883–1938)	22 December 1935	21 September 1938 †	2 years, 273 days
5		Major general Henry H. Arnold (1886–1950)	29 September 1938	20 June 1941	2 years, 264 days
6		Major general George H. Brett (1886–1963)	20 June 1941	9 March 1942	262 days

Commanding generals, GHQ Air Force

• Maj. Gen.Frank M. Andrews,1 March 1935 – 1 March 1939
• Maj. Gen.Delos C. Emmons,1 March 1939 – 20 June 1941

as Air Force Combat Command

• Lt. Gen.Delos C. Emmons,20 June 1941 – 17 December 1941
• Maj. Gen.Carl A. Spaatz– c. January 1942 – 5 May 1942

Lineage of the United States Air Force

• Aeronautical Division, Signal Corps1 August 1907 – 18 July 1914
• Aviation Section, Signal Corps18 July 1914 – 20 May 1918
• Division of Military Aeronautics20 May 1918 – 24 May 1918
• Air Service, U.S. Army24 May 1918 – 2 July 1926
• U.S. Army Air Corps 2 July 1926 – 20 June 1941*
• U.S. Army Air Forces20 June 1941 – 18 September 1947*
• United States Air Force18 September 1947 – present

* The Air Corps became a subordinate component of the Army Air Forces on 20 June 1941, and was abolished as an administrative organization on 9 March 1942. It continued to exist as one of the combat arms of the Army (along with Infantry, Cavalry, Artillery, Corps of Engineers, and Signal Corps) until abolished by reorganization provisions of the National Security Act of 1947 (61Stat.495), 26 July 1947.

See also

• Bird of Paradise (aircraft)
• Question Mark (aircraft)
• Air Force Space Command

References

Sources

• Army Air Forces Statistical Digest, World War II.Office of Statistical Control, Headquarters AAF. Washington, D.C. December 1945

Tables 1–73, Combat Groups, Personnel, Training, and Crews

• Bowman, Martin W. (1997).USAAF Handbook 1939–1945,ISBN0-8117-1822-0
• Coffey, Thomas M. (1982).Hap: The Story of the U.S. Air Force and the Man Who Built It, General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold,The Viking Press,ISBN0-670-36069-4
• Cate, James L. (1945).The History of the Twentieth Air Force: Genesis(USAF Historical Study 112). AFHRA
• Cline, Ray S. (1990).Washington Command Post: The Operations DivisionArchived11 December 2018 at theWayback Machine.United States Army in World War II: The War Department(series),United States Army Center of Military History
• Craven, Wesley Frank, and Cate, James Lea, editors (1983).The Army Air Forces In World War II,Air Force Historical Studies Office,ISBN0-912799-03-X(Vol. 1).

(1948).Volume One – Plans and Early Operations: January 1939 – August 1942Archived18 October 2016 at theWayback Machine

(1949).Volume Two – Europe: Torch to Pointblank: August 1942 – December 1943Archived23 November 2016 at theWayback Machine

(1951).Volume Three – Europe: Argument to V-E Day: January 1944 – May 1945Archived23 November 2016 at theWayback Machine

(1950).Volume Four – The Pacific: Guadalcanal to Saipan: August 1942 – July 1944Archived23 November 2016 at theWayback Machine

(1953).Volume Five – The Pacific: Matterhorn to Nagasaki: June 1944-August 1945

(1955).Volume Six – Men and PlanesArchived23 November 2016 at theWayback Machine

(1958).Volume Seven – Services Around the World

• Eden, Paul and Soph Moeng, eds (2002).The Complete Encyclopedia of World Aircraft.London: Amber Books Ltd.ISBN0-7607-3432-1.
• Foulois, Benjamin D. Glines, Carroll V. (1968).From the Wright Brothers to the Astronauts: The Memoirs of Major General Benjamin D. Foulois.New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
• Futrell, Robert F. (1989).Ideas, Concepts, Doctrine: Basic Thinking in the United States Air Force 1907–1960, Vol. I.Air University Press.ISBN1-58566-029-9.
• Futrell, Robert F (1951)."Development of AAF Base Facilities in the United States 1939–1945"(PDF).Air Force Historical Research Agency. Archived fromthe original(PDF)on 8 September 2012.Retrieved15 January2011.
• Greenfield, Col. Kent Roberts (1948). Study No. 35Army Ground Forces and the Air-Ground Battle Team.Historical Section Army Ground Forces, AD-A954 913
• Greer, Thomas H. (1985).The Development of Air Doctrine in the Army Air Arm, 1917–1941(PDF).Maxwell Air Force Base:(USAF Historical Study 89). Center For Air Force History. Archived fromthe original(PDF)on 13 March 2013.Retrieved10 November2010.
• Griffith, Charles (1999).The Quest: Haywood Hansell and American Strategic Bombing in World War II.Maxwell Air Force Base:Air University Press.ISBN1-58566-069-8.
• Maurer, Maurer (1987).Aviation in the U.S. Army, 1919–1939,Office of Air Force History, Washington, D.C.ISBN1-4102-1391-9
• Maurer, Maurer (1961).Air Force Combat Units of World War II,Office of Air Force History.ISBN0-405-12194-6
• McClendon, R. Earl (1996).Autonomy of the Air Arm(PDF).Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama: Air University.ISBN0-16-045510-3.Archived fromthe original(PDF)on 23 November 2016.Retrieved31 May2012.
• Mooney, Chase C. and Layman, Martha E. (1944)."Organization of Military Aeronautics, 1907–1935 (Congressional and War Department Action)"(PDF).(USAF Historical Study No. 25). AFHRA. Archived fromthe original(PDF)on 27 December 2010.Retrieved14 December2010.{{cite web}}:CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Mooney, Chase C. (1956)."Organization of the Army Air Arm, 1935–1945"(PDF).(USAF Historical Study No. 10). AFHRA. Archived fromthe original(PDF)on 27 December 2010.Retrieved27 March2011.
• Nalty, Bernard C. (1997). "Reaction to the war in Europe".Winged Shield, Winged Sword: A History of the United States Air Force.Vol. I.ISBN0-16-049009-X.
• Rice, Rondall Ravon (2004).The Politics of Air Power: From Confrontation to Cooperation in Army Aviation Civil-Military Relations,University of Nebraska Press.ISBN0-8032-3960-2
• Shiner, John F. (1997). "The Coming of the GHQ Air Force".Winged Shield, Winged Sword: A History of the United States Air Force.Vol. I.ISBN0-16-049009-X.
• Shiner, John F. (1997). "The Heyday of the GHQ Air Force, 1935–1939".Winged Shield, Winged Sword: A History of the United States Air Force.Vol. I.ISBN0-16-049009-X.
• Smith, Richard K. (1998).Seventy-Five Years of Inflight Refueling: Highlights 1923-1998Air Force History and Museums, Air University, Maxwell AFB
• Tate, James P. (1998).The Army and its Air Corps: Army Policy Toward Aviation 1919–1941.Maxwell Air Force Base:Air University Press.ISBN0-16-061379-5.
• White, Jerry (1949).Combat Crew and Training Units in the AAF, 1939–45(USAF Historical Study 61). Air Force Historical Research Agency.
• Williams, Edwin L. Jr. (1953).Legislative History of the AAF and USAF, 1941–1951(USAF Historical Study No. 84). Air Force Historical Research Agency

Websites

• 2006 Almanac,Air Force Magazine: Journal of the Air Force Association,May 2006, Volume 89 Number 5
• U.S. Air Force Historical Studies Office
• Texas Military Veteran Video Oral Histories – Newton Gresham Library, Sam Houston State UniversityMany of the veterans included in this collections served in the United States Army Air Corps and share their experiences.