T H E B A T T L E O F T H E A T L A N T I C
radar had opened up an entirely new field for investigation in anti-
submarine tactics, though as yet little had been done in this coun-
try along that line and only a few Army aircraft were specially
equipped.34
Generally speaking, Army antisubmarine operations fell into three
broad categories: routine patrol of areas in which the threat of enemy
action existed, special patrol of an area in which a particular U-boat
was known to be lurking (a process known sometimes as a “killer
hunt” and carried out often in conjunction with naval air and surface
forces), and cover for convoys sailing within range of land-based
aircraft. The first two of these activities, involving as they did an
attempt to search out and attack the enemy, constituted the offensive
phase of the campaign. The last, consisting of the direct protection of
shipping, was primarily defensive in character, although it was recog-
nized that the vicinity of a convoy was a likely place for U-boats to
be It was not, however, until after 15 May 1942 that the
Army units were called upon for regular convoy cover, for it was
not until that date that the Navy felt able, in terms of escort vessels
and aircraft, to inaugurate a convoy system for coastal shipping.36
Beginning in May, I Bomber Command aircraft were requested by
the sea frontier commanders to take part in the protection of convoys
from Key West to the Chesapeake Bay, and during the summer steps
were taken to extend protection to the oil and bauxite shipping in the
Caribbean. The Navy was able to assume a large share of this convoy
air cover. By the end of May, it was employing long-range PBY-
type aircraft with an endurance of fifteen hours over the most distant
convoy route~.~’Nevertheless, convoy protection was already com-
peting strongly for the services of AAF antisubmarine units.
Six months of experience in U-boat hunting began to bear fruit
during July, August, and September in a noticeably higher level of
success in the attacks made by units operating under I Bomber Com-
mand control. Although the number of attacks fell off rapidly after
the high record of June, the proportion of those considered damaging
to the submarine increased remarkably. Whereas during the previous
three months only seven of the fifty-four attacks were thus assessed,
during July, August, and September eight out of twenty-four attacks
were believed to have damaged the enemy craft, and one, executed on
7 July, resulted in a sure “kill.” 3 8
Still more interesting is the fact that the frequency of attacks made
533