The
United States Army Air Corps (USAAC) was the
predecessor of the
U.S. Army Air Forces (USAAF) from
1926-41, which in turn was the forerunner of today's
U.S. Air Force (USAF), established in
1947. Although abolished as an organization in 1941, it existed as
a branch subordinate to the USAAF from 1941-47.
The Air Corps was created from the
Air Service in 1926 largely
as a compromise between advocates of a separate air arm and those
of the command structure of the
United States Army who viewed the
aviation arm as an auxiliary branch to support the ground forces.
Although its members worked to promote the concept of airpower and
an autonomous air force between 1926 and 1941, as a branch of the
Army similar to the
Signal Corps or
Quartermaster Corps, its primary purpose
by Army policy remained support of ground forces rather than
independent operations.
Lineage of the United States Air Force
- Aeronautical Division,
U.S. Signal
Corps 1 August 1907–July 18, 1914
- Aviation
Section, U.S. Signal Corps 18 July
1914–May 20, 1918
- Division of
Military Aeronautics 20 May 1918–May 24, 1918
- U.S. Army Air Service 24 May
1918–July 2, 1926
- U.S. Army Air Corps 2 July
1926–June 20, 1941** * [[United States Army Air Forces|U.S. Army
Air Forces]] 20 June 1941–September 18, 1947** * [[United States
Air Force]] 18 September 1947–Present ** The Air
Corps became a subordinate element of the Army Air
Forces, and no longer an administrative organization, on
20 June 1941. It continued to exist as a combat arm of the Army
(similar to Infantry) until disestablished by Congress with the
creation of the U.S. Air Force in 1947.
Creation of the Air Corps

Army Air Corps aerial maneuvers over
Burbank, California, 1930
The Lassiter Board, a group of
General
Staff officers, recommended to the
Secretary of War in 1923 that
the
Air Service be replaced by
a force of bombardment and pursuit units to carry out independent
missions under the command of an Army general headquarters in time
of war. The Lampert Committee of the
House of
Representatives went far beyond this modest proposal in its
report to the House in December 1925. After eleven months of
extensive hearings, the committee proposed a unified air force
independent of the Army and Navy, plus a department of defense to
coordinate the three armed services.
Another board, headed by
Dwight
Morrow, had already reached an opposite conclusion in only two
and one-half months. Appointed in September 1925 by
President Calvin
Coolidge ostensibly to study the "best means of developing and
applying aircraft in national defense" but in actuality to minimize
the political impact of the pending court-martial of
Billy Mitchell and to preempt the findings of
the Lampert Committee, the Morrow Board issued its report two weeks
before the Lampert Committee's. In accordance with the views of the
President, it rejected the idea of a department of defense and a
separate department of air, but it recommended several minor
reforms including that the Air Service be renamed the Air Corps to
allow it more prestige, that it be given special representation on
the General Staff, and that an Assistant Secretary of War for
Aviation be appointed. The Air Corps retained the "
Prop and Wings" as its branch insignia
through its disestablishment in 1947.
Congress accepted the Morrow Board proposal, and the Air Corps Act
(44 Stat. 780) was enacted on 2 July 1926. The legislation changed
the name of the Air Service to the Air Corps, "thereby
strengthening the conception of military aviation as an offensive,
striking arm rather than an auxiliary service." The act created an
additional Assistant Secretary of War to help foster military
aeronautics, and it established an air section in each division of
the General Staff for a period of three years. Other provisions
required that all flying units be commanded by rated personnel and
that flight pay be continued. Two additional brigadier generals
would serve as assistant chiefs of the Air Corps. The Chief of the
Air Service, Maj. Gen.
Mason Patrick,
then became Chief of the Air Corps.
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 forces
corps commands and not the Air Corps, which remained
responsible only for procurement of aircraft, maintenance of bases,
supply, and training. Even the new position of Assistant Secretary
of War for Air, held by
F.
Trubee Davison from 1926 to 1932,
was of little help in promoting autonomy for the air arm.
The act for the Air Corps gave authorization to carry out a
five-year expansion program. However, the lack of funding caused
the beginning of the five-year expansion program to be delayed
until 1 July 1927. The goal eventually adopted was 1,800 airplanes
with 1,650 officers and 15,000 enlisted men, to be reached in
regular increments over a five-year period. But even this modest
increase never came about because adequate funds were never
appropriated in the budget and the coming of the
Great Depression forced reductions in pay
and modernization. Organizationally the Air Corps did double from
seven to fifteen groups. (
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 |
January, 1927 |
PW-9 |
7th Bomb Group |
Rockwell Field,
California |
1 June 1928 |
LB-7, B-3A |
12th Observation Group¹ |
Brooks Field , Texas |
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 Group² |
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-27 C-33 |
¹Disbanded on 20 May 1937
²Redesignated 17th Attack Group (1935), 17th Bomb Group
(1939)
As units of the Air Corps increased in number, so did higher
command echelons. The 2nd Wing was activated in 1922 as part of the
Air Service, and then renamed the 2nd Bombardment Wing in 1929 when
the 1st Bombardment Wing was also activated. A third wing,
initially called the 3rd Attack Wing, was activated in 1932, at
which time the 1st Bomb Wing was redesignated the 1st Pursuit Wing.
The three wings became the foundation of General Headquarters Air
Force upon its activation in 1935.

B-6A of 1st Bomb Squadron, 9th BG,
1935
Most early pursuit fighters before 1935 were of the
Curtiss P-1 Hawk (1926-1930)
and
Boeing P-12 (1929-1935) families,
and most front-line bombers before the 1934 introduction of the
all-metal monoplane were variants of the
radial engined Keystone LB-6 (60 LB-5A, LB-6 and LB-7 planes)
and
B-3A (127 B-3A, B-4A, B-5, and
B-6A planes) designs. Between 1927 and 1934, the
O-1/A-3 Falcons (183 observation and 154
attack aircraft) fulfilled the observation/close support role
designated by the General Staff as the primary mission of the Air
Corps.
Transport aircraft of the first ten years of the Air Corps were of
largely
trimotor design, such as the
Atlantic-Fokker C-2 and the
Ford 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 the
Consolidated PT-3
trainer, followed by the
Stearman PT-13 and variants after
1937.
In 1933 the Air Corps expanded to a tactical strength of 50
squadrons: 21 pursuit, 13 observation, 12 bombardment, and 4
attack. The last open-cockpit fighter used by the USAAC, the
P-26, 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 the mail in
the wake of a
scandal involving the
postmaster general
and heads of the
airlines. Despite an
embarrassing performance that resulted in a number of crashes and
fatalities, the investigating boards that followed recommended
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 one 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.
Doctrinal development and battles
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 Jan 1931 |
In March 1928, commenting on the lack of survivability in combat of
his unit's
Keystone LB-7 and
Martin NBS-1 bombers, Lt. Col. Hugh J.
Knerr,
commander of the 2nd Bombardment Group at Langley
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 the
Air Corps Tactical School, also
then at Langley, took the concept one step further in March 1930 by
recommending that the types instead be
light and
heavy, the latter capable of long range carrying a heavy
bomb load.
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
Operations Admiral
William V.
Pratt was desirous of having all
naval aviation including land-based coastal defense aircraft tied
to carrier-based fleet operations. Pratt reached an agreement with
new Army Chief of Staff
Douglas
MacArthur that the Air Corps would assume responsibility for
coastal defense beyond the range of the Army's Coast Artillery
guns, ending the Navy's role in coastal air operations. Though the
Navy repudiated the statement when Adm. 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 of
strategic bombing gave new impetus to the
argument for an independent air force. Strategic or long-range
bombardment was intended to destroy an enemy nation'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 to Maxwell
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, Major
Harold 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.
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. In both 1932 and 1933,
large-scale maneuvers found fighters unable to climb to altitude
quickly enough to intercept attacking
Y1B-9 and
B-10
prototypes, a failure so complete that Brig. Gen.
Oscar Westover, following the 1933 maneuvers,
actually proposed elimination of pursuits altogether.
The successful development of the
Martin
B-10 and subsequent orders after 1935 for more than 150
(including its B-12 variant) continued the hegemony of the bomber
within the AAC. The B-10 featured innovations that became standard
for the next decade: an all-metal monoplane, closed cockpits,
rotating gun turrets, retractable landing gear, internal bomb bay,
and full engine cowlings.
The superiority of bombers resulted in a 1934 feasibility study for
a 35-ton 4-engined bomber (the
Boeing
XB-15) that, while found to be unsuitable for combat because of
inadequate engine size, led to the design of the Model 299, later
to become the
B-17 Flying
Fortress, whose first flight was in July 1935. 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.
The Army and Navy, both cognizant of the growing 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 the
concurrence of Gen. MacArthur, issued a "Joint Action Statement"
that reasserted the limited role of the Air Corps as merely an
auxiliary to the "mobile Army" in all its missions, including
coastal defense. The edict was issued with the intent of shoving an
upstart Air Corps back into its place. However, the bomber
advocates interpreted its language to mean that the Air Corps could
conduct long range reconnaissance, attack approaching fleets,
reinforce distant bases, and attack enemy air bases, all in
furtherance of its mission to prevent an air attack on America.
The lack
of inter-service cooperation on coastal defense fostered by the
Joint Board agreement continued until culminating in the Japanese
attack on Pearl Harbor
.
In 1937 the War Department, seeking to stifle procurement of the
B-17, decided that it would develop and procure only twin-engined
medium bombers in fiscal years 1939 and 1940, and refused funding
for further experimental development of a very long range bomber.
In collaboration with the Navy, it placed a moratorium on the long
range bomber program in June 1938 by issuing a Joint Board ruling
that it could foresee no use for a long range bomber in future
conflict. However the moratorium would last only a year, as it went
against not only the trends of technological development, but
against the geopolitical realities of coming war.
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 4-engined bombers, and was
lobbying for another mission, strategic
bombardment, with which it could persuasively argue for
independence from the Army.
GHQ Air Force
The next major step toward creation of a separate air force
occurred on 1 March 1935 with the activation of a centralized
operational air force, commanded by an aviator and answering to the
Chief of
Staff of the Army. Called
General Headquarters (GHQ)
Air Force, the command had existed in Army planning since
1924, as a subordinate element of an Army General Headquarters that
would be activated to control all Army units in case of war
mobilization. In anticipation of war with Cuba in 1933, the
headquarters had been created but not staffed on 1 October. Among
the findings of the Baker Board, established in the wake of the Air
Mail scandal, was that GHQ Air Force be set up as a permanent
peacetime tactical organization to both ameliorate the pressures
for a separate air force and to exploit emerging capabilities in
airpower. In the absence of a general headquarters, GHQ Air Force
would report to the General Staff.
GHQ Air Force took all combat air units in the United States out of
the control of corps area commanders, where they had resided since
1920, and organized them operationally into a strike force of three
wings, and administratively into four geographical districts that
later became the first four numbered air forces. 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" along with the Air Corps, and not subject to its
control. However all its 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 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. Lines
of authority were also difficult as GHQ Air Force controlled only
combat flying units within the continental United States, with the
Air Corps still responsible for training, aircraft development,
doctrine, and supply, and the ground forces corps area commanders
still controlling their installations and the support personnel
manning them. The commanders of GHQ Air Force and the Air Corps,
Major Generals
Frank Maxwell
Andrews and
Oscar Westover
respectively, clashed philosophically over the direction in which
the air arm was heading, adding to the difficulties, with Andrews
in favor of autonomy and Westover espousing subordination to the
Army chain of command. The air arm embraced strategic bombing as
its primary doctrine after the creation of GHQ Air Force, but could
only buy a few of the new four-engined
B-17 Flying Fortresses, so that by 1938
there were still only thirteen on hand and orders for more had been
suspended.
In January 1936, the AAC contracted with
Boeing for thirteen Y1B-17 prototypes, 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 disturbed both Army Secretary
Harry Woodring, who denied requests
for further purchases, and Army Chief of Staff
Malin Craig, who in 1938 reversed plans for five
squadrons of B-17s (67 airplanes) to be purchased with carryover
funds.
The Air Corps also incurred the enmity of
the Navy on 12 May 1938, by widely publicizing an interception of the Italian ocean liner
Rex by three B-17s while it was 610 miles off-shore of
New York
City
. Craig placed a 100-mile restriction on all
off-shore flights in response, and the services issued a joint
statement reasserting that the mission of the Air Corps was only
that of a support auxiliary for Army ground forces, or for
supporting the Navy if called upon to do so.
Even with the doctrine of strategic bombardment as its priority,
the Air Corps sought to modernize its tactical combat force under
GHQ Air Force, bringing into service the
Northrop A-17 and
Douglas B-18 Bolo in 1936,
Seversky P-35 in 1937, and the
Curtiss P-36 in 1938. However all of these
aircraft were obsolete by the time they came into service, and
development of more modern airplanes continued. By October 1940,
over a year before the United States was drawn into the war, every
piston-driven single-engine fighter used by the USAAF in 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 fighters was not undertaken until combat
losses to bombers forced the issue.
Problems with unity of command
General Arnold, at the direction of President
Franklin D. Roosevelt in January 1939, oversaw an
expansion of the Air Corps that saw it double 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. In March 1939,
with the replacement of Gen. Andrews as commander of GHQ Air Force
by Maj. Gen.
Delos C. Emmons, Arnold was also nominally assigned to
"supervise" the tactical force, but divisions were not entirely
resolved. On 5 October 1940, Arnold drew up a proposal for creating
an air staff, unifying the air arm 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 Staff
George 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. GHQ Army was activated (over
five years after the activation of GHQ Air Force) and GHQ AF placed
under it. Its logistical and training structure remained under
direct control of the chief of staff and its airfields under corps
commanders. However Arnold had joined the
General Staff as acting "Deputy Chief of Staff
for Air" on 11 November 1940, a position that enabled him to
coordinate the two sections of the air arm until the organizational
problems were repaired. Even so, Maj. Gen.
George H. Brett, acting Chief of Air Corps in
Arnold's absence, denounced the plan as "disastrous in war".
The problems of lack of unity of command were further exacerbated
by the assignment of GHQ Air Force to Army GHQ. General Emmons, who
had begun his tour junior to Arnold, was promoted to
lieutenant general to 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 were
major
generals). On 20 June 1941, to end the divisions, the War
Department revised Army Regulation 95-5 to create the
Army Air Forces with the Air Corps and
GHQAF (the latter redesignated as Combat Command) as its major
components, 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.
During
World War II the role of the Air
Corps changed again. On 9 March 1942, with the issuance of War
Department Circular 59, the Air Corps was further subordinated to
the USAAF as a combatant arm (as
Infantry
and
Field Artillery were subordinate
combatant arms of the Army Ground Forces, which replaced Army
General Headquarters) and the office of Chief of the Air Corps was
abolished. The Congress did not disestablish the Army Air Corps
until 26 July 1947, with the passage of the National Security Act
of 1947 (61 Stat. 502).
Most members of the Army Air Forces, however, also remained members
of the Air Corps. In May 1945, 88 per cent of officers serving in
the Army Air Forces were commissioned in the Air Corps, while 82
per cent of enlisted members assigned to AAF units and bases had
the Air Corps as their combat arm branch.
Modernization and expansion of the force
New aircraft

Douglas C-39 transport
The Air Corps tested and employed a profusion of pursuit,
observation, and bomber aircraft during its 15-year history. The
advent of the all-metal monoplane, enclosed cockpits, retracting
landing gear, enclosed bomb bays, 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 entered World War II.
Among the key technology developed were oxygen and cabin
pressurization systems, engine
superchargers (systems essential for
high-altitude combat), and the
Norden
bombsight.
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 a
Douglas
DC-2 as the XC-32, which subsequently became the flying
headquarters of Gen. Andrews.
The XC-32 so exceeded Air Corps
specifications that 17 were purchased to equip the first
operational transport unit, the 10th Transport Group, activated in
June 1937 at Patterson Field
, Ohio
. In
1939 the Air Corps recognized the importance of modern air
transports and purchased 35 DC-2/
DC-3
hybrids, designated the C-39, the forerunner of the thousands of
C-47 Skytrains that served in World
War II.
Notable fighters developed during the late 1930s and early 1940s
were the
P-39 (first flown April 1938),
P-40 (October 1938),
P-38
(January 1939),
P-51 (October 1940),
and
P-47 (May 1941). Bombers developed during
this period were the
A-20 (first flown
October 1938),
B-25 (January 1939),
B-24 (December 1939), and
B-26
(November 1940). Except for the B-24, P-47 and P-51, all had
production deliveries begun before June 1941. Three other
long-range bombers began development during this period, though
only mockups were produced before World War II:
B-29 (study begun in 1938),
B-32 (June 1940), and
B-36 (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 6,000-plane 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. In June the Kilmer Board recommended several
types of bombers needed to fulfill the Air Corps mission that
included aircraft having tactical radii of both 3,000 miles
(modified in 1940 to 4,000) and 2,000 miles. Chief of Staff Gen.
Craig, long an impediment to Air Corps ambitions, was about to
retire, and the 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.
General Arnold transferred a group of experienced officers to his
headquarters as an air staff to lay out a plan over the winter of
1938-1939 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 the numbers of
combat units, aircraft production, training new personnel, and
constructing new bases. New combat groups were created by detaching
cadres from existing groups to provide the core of the new units,
with the older groups providing the basis for an average of three
new groups.
The initial "25-group program" for air defense of the hemisphere,
developed in April 1939, called for 50,000 men. Following the
successful
German invasion of France
and the Low Countries in May 1940, the "54-group program"
followed, although funding approval could not keep pace and an
inclusive "41-group program" was actually implemented. An "84-group
program", with an eventual goal of 400,000 men by 30 June 1942, was
begun in March 1941, although not publicly announced until 23
October 1941.
When war broke out in September 1939 the plan was already halfway
to its goal in manpower, but with only 800 first-line combat
aircraft. 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 fields on Army posts. The acceleration of the expansion
programs resulted in an Air Corps of 156 airfields and nearly
100,000 men by the end of 1940.
20 civilian flight schools and eight
technical training schools were contracted to provide additional
training facilities, and on 10 August 1940, Pan American Airways was enlisted to
provide meteorological and navigation training at Coral
Gables, Florida
, until military schools could be
established.
At this stage, public opinion support of airpower reached
unprecedented highs, but General 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 Army Chief of Staff General
George C. Marshall, Arnold felt it would "be a
serious mistake to change the existing setup" in the midst of the
crucial expansion effort.
Organization of the Air Corps
Army Air Corps, March 1, 1935
- SOURCE: Maurer Maurer, Air Force Combat Units of
World War II
General Headquarters Air Force
(Maj. Gen.
Frank M. Andrews, Langley Field
, Virginia
)
- 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, 73rd, & 95th Attack Squadrons
- 19th Bombardment Group,
March Field, California
- :23rd,
30th, 32nd, & 72d Bombardment Squadrons (23rd
& 72nd BS based in Hawaii
)
- 2nd Wing (Brig. Gen. H. Conger Pratt,
Langley
Field
, Virginia
)
- 1st Pursuit
Group, Selfridge
Field
, Michigan
- :17th, 27th & 94th Pursuit Squadrons
- 2nd Bombardment Group,
Langley Field, Virginia
- :20th, 49th, 54th, and
96th Bombardment Squadrons (54th
detached to Air Corps Tactical School)
- 8th Pursuit Group, Langley
Field, Virginia
- :33rd, 35th & 36th Pursuit Squadrons (37th Attack
Squadron attached)
- 9th Bombardment
Group, Mitchel
Field
, New
York
- :1st, 5th, 14th & 99th Bombardment Squadrons
- 37th Attack Squadron
(attached to 8th Pursuit Group)
- 3rd Wing (Col. Gerald C. Brant, Barksdale
Field
, Louisiana
)
- 3rd Attack Group, Barksdale Field,
Louisiana
- :8th, 13th, & 90th Attack Squadrons
- 20th Pursuit Group, Barksdale
Field, Louisiana
- :55th, 77th & 79th Pursuit Squadrons
- 21st
Airship Group, Scott Field
, Illinois
- 9th Airship Squadron, Scott Field
- 19th Airship Squadron, Langley Field

PT-13, Air Corps primary trainer
Other flying units
- Advanced Flying School,
Kelly
Field
, Texas
- 40th Attack, 42nd
Bombardment, 43d Pursuit
Squadrons
- 39th School Squadron
- Air Corps Technical School,
Chanute
Field
, Illinois
- 48th Pursuit
Squadron
- Air Corps Tactical
School, (Col. John F.
Curry, Maxwell
Field
, Alabama
)
- 54th Bombardment, 86th
Observation Squadrons
- Rockwell Air Depot,
Rockwell Field, California

- 4th Transport Squadron
(Activated 8 July 1935)
- Second Corps Area, Mitchel Field
, New
York
- 97th Observation Squadron
- Sixth
Corps Area, Scott
Field
, Illinois
- 15th Observation Squadron
- Ninth
Corps Area, Crissy
Field
, California
- 91st Observation
Squadron
- 12th
Observation Group, Brooks Field
, Texas
- 12th, 22d, and 88th Observation Squadrons
Overseas units
- 18th Composite Wing, (Lt. Col. Delos Emmons, Fort Shafter
, Hawaii
)
- 5th
Composite Group, Luke
Field
, Hawaii
- :26th Attack, 40th
& 50th Observation Squadrons (23d, 72d BS attached)
- 18th Pursuit Group,
Wheeler
Field
, Hawaii
- :6th, 19th Pursuit Squadrons
- 19th Composite Wing, (Lt. Col. William C.
McCord,
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
- 4th Composite
Group, Clark
Field
, Luzon
- 2nd Observation, 3d
Pursuit & 28th Bombardment
Squadrons
Annual strength
Strength as of 30 June of each year
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year |
Strength |
|
Year |
Strength |
|
Year |
Strength |
1927 |
9,979 |
|
1932 |
14,650 |
|
1937 |
18,572 |
1928 |
10,518 |
|
1933 |
14,817 |
|
1938 |
20,196 |
1929 |
12,080 |
|
1934 |
15,621 |
|
1939 |
22,387 |
1930 |
13,305 |
|
1935 |
15,945 |
|
1940 |
51,185 |
1931 |
14,485 |
|
1936 |
16,863 |
|
1941 |
152,125 |
Chiefs of the Air Corps
- Maj. Gen. Mason M. Patrick, 2 July 1926–December 13, 1927
- Maj. Gen. James E. Fechet, 14 December 1927–December 19,
1931
- Maj. Gen. Benjamin D. Foulois, 20 December 1931–December 21,
1935
- Maj. Gen. Oscar Westover, 22
December 1935–September 21, 1938
- Maj. Gen. Henry H. Arnold, 29 September 1938–June 20, 1941
- Maj. Gen. George H.
Brett, 20 June 1941–March 9,
1942
See also
References
- The primary difference between the types is the twin-finned
tail of the former, and the single vertical stabilizer of the
latter design.
- Shiner, Lt.Col. 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.1 1907-1950. USAF. ISBN
0-16-049009-X, p. 136, 120, for the GHQAF figure.
- Tate, p. 78.
- Tate, Dr. James P. (1998). The Army and its Air Corps: Army
Policy Toward Aviation 1919-1941, Air University Press. P.
161.
- Shiner, "The Coming of the GHQ Air Force", p. 116.
- Bowman, Martin W., USAAF Handbook 1939-1945, ISBN
0-8117-1822-0, p. 7.
- Cate, James L. (1945). USAF Historical Study 112: The
History of the Twentieth Air Force: Genesis. Air Force
Historical research Agency, p. 17.
- Cate, p. 15.
- Cate, p. 16.
- Cate, p. 17.
- Cate, pp. 17-18.
- Shiner, Winged Shield, Winged Sword, p. 133.
- Correll, John T. "GHQ Air Force", AIR FORCE Magazine,
September 2008, Vol. 91 No. 9, p.63.
- Maurer Maurer (1987). Aviation in the U.S. Army,
1919-1939, Officer of Air Force History, Washington, D.C. ISBN
1410213919. P. 298.
- Correll, "GHQ Air Force", pp.63-64.
- Shiner, "The Heyday of the GHQ Air Force, 1935-1939", p.
146.
- John T. Correll, "Rendezvous With the Rex", AIR
FORCE Magazine December 2008, Vol. 91 No. 12, p. 56. This is a
common error. The Rex was 725 miles offshore on her last
position report as the B-17s were taxiing for takeoff.
- Goss, William A., "Origins of the Army Air Forces", The
Army Air Forces in World War II Vol. Six: Men and Planes
(Craven, Wesley F. and Cate, James L. editors, 1945, 1984).
University of Chicago Press, ISBN 0-912799-03-X, p. 18.
- Correll, "GHQ Air Force", p.66.
- , p. 64-65.
- Message of President Roosevelt to the Congress, 12 January
1939 The entire message is reproduced here.
- Williams, Edwin L., Jr. (1953). USAF Historical Study No. 84:
Legislative History of the AAF and USAF, 1941-1951 Air
Force Historical research Agency, p. 12. Public Law 18, 76th
Congress, 1st Session.
- Cate, p. 18.
- Jerry White, USAF Historical Study 61: Combat Crew and
Training Units in the AAF, 1939-45. Air Force Historical
Research Agency.
- Robert Futrell, USAF Historical Study No. 69:
Development of AAF Base Facilities in the United States,
1939-1945, pp. 23-24.
- The original goals of the final "hemispheric defense program"
were 84 combat groups; 7,799 tactical aircraft; 30,000 new pilots
annually; and 100,000 new technical personnel annually.
- Craven, Wesley F., and Cate, James L. (editors, 1945, 1984).
The Army Air Forces in World War II Vol. One: Plans & Early
Operations, January 1939 to August 1942, p. 105-106.
- Futrell, Development of AAF Base Facilities in the United
States, 1939-1945, pp. 2-7. The 21 major bases were
Langley, Mitchel, March,
Scott, Selfridge, Barksdale, Hamilton, Moffett, Bolling, McChord, Kelly,
Brooks, Randolph, Chanute, Lowry,
Maxwell, and Wright Fields, and San
Antonio, Middletown, Fairfield, and Sacramento Air Depots.
- Futrell, Development of AAF Base Facilities in the
United States, 1939-1945, p. 26.
Sources
- U.S. Air Force Historical Studies Office
- Bowman, Martin W., "Background to War", USAAF Handbook
1939-1945, ISBN 0-8117-1822-0
- Maurer, Maurer, Air Force Combat Units of World War II,
Office of Air Force history (1961). ISBN 0-40512-194-6
- Shiner, John F., Winged Shield, Winged Sword: A History of
the United States Air Force (1997), ISBN 0-16-049009-X
- Vol. I, Chap. 4, "The Coming of the GHQ Air Force,
1925-1935"
- Vol. I, Chap. 5, "The Heyday of the GHQ Air Force,
1935-1939"
- 2006 Almanac, Air Force Magazine: Journal of the Air
Force Association, May 2006, Volume 89 Number 5