T H E A R M Y A I R F O R C E S I N W O R L D W A R I 1
supported by charts and tables than those of the older services. That
the AAF made a separate report was most unusual; it was also highly
significant.
Within the War Department, responsibility for giving effect to the
President’s directive, in respect both to the Army’s ground and air
arms, devolved upon the War Plans Division. Late in July, Lt. Col.
Clayton L. Bissell, an air officer in that division, consulted with
General Arnold on the best method of determining the Army’s avia-
tion needs. It was indicative of the temper of the AAF that, in spite
of its limited autonomy under AR 95-5 of 2 0 June 1941,* a decision
was reached to allow the newly formed Air War Plans Division to
prepare the estimate independently as an Air Staff agency rather than
as individuals subordinate to the General Staff’s WPD. And AWPD
was not as unprepared for the task as might be expected in view of
its extreme youth. It included a number of officers, previously associ-
ated with the Air Corps Tactical School, who were deeply imbued
with the potentialities of air power. One of these, Maj. Haywood S.
Hansell, Jr., had accumulated target information in the intelligence
section of the Office of the Chief of the Air Corps and had just
returned from England with fresh data and a familiarity with RAF
experience. Actual authorship of a military document is seldom
known. A number of officers from the several staff agencies of the
AAF, including the OCAC, contributed information which went into
AWPD/I. But the document was put together by a committee con-
sisting of Col. Harold L. George, division chief, Lt. Col. Kenneth N.
Walker, and Majs. Laurence S. Kuter and Haywood S. Hansell, and
apparently these airmen were chiefly responsible for the strategic
concepts.’ 38
Work on the plan began on 4 August; completed on the I Ith, it
was accepted by G-3 after an oral presentation and drawn up in final
form the following day. Subsequently it was approved by WPD,
General Arnold, General Marshall, Mr. Lovett, and Mr. Stimson, and
was included in the Joint Board’s report of I I September.13’ Perhaps
its ready acceptance was partly due to the pressure of time in meeting
the President’s directive, for irrespective of the intrinsic merits of
AWPD/I, the views expressed therein were not wholly consistent
with those of the W a r Department. Tacitly, though not legally, the
* See above, p. 1x5.
146