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
operations will have an effect, far in excess of its actual operational
importance, on the attitude of the RAF, the British, and the American
people toward the B-17 as a fighting plane.” ’’’
On inquiry, Brig Gen. Ralph Royce, air attach6 in London, con-
firmed disquieting reports which General Arnold had received: that
the RAF had been forced by the British government, for political and
publicity reasons, to use the Fortresses; that crew training had been
inadequate, especially in reference to use of the Sperry sight; and that
maintenance had been slow and ineffi~ient.~’~Undoubtedly there was
something to be said on both sides. The Americans saw chiefly the
negligence in maintenance and the failure to follow AAF procedures
in operations. The British saw rather the mechanical failures, the
limited armament, and the losses. Fundamentally, the difficulty lay in
the fact that no one in the RAF was eager about the planes.
A typical expression of British opinion may be found in reports by
experienced RAF pilots invited to the States as consultants in Oc-
t ~ b e r . ~ ’ ~They thought that the B-17 and B-24 might be suitable for
service in the Pacific, but that they were too lightly armed for day-
light missions over Germany-in fact, they called both “night
bombers”! Because of its heavier bomb load, they preferred the B-24
to the B-17 but considered both inferior to British heavy bombers.
The pilots spoke of the ruggedness of the B-17 under fire, but they
believed that no bomber could stand up against German defenses in
the daytime.’05 So firmly ingrained had this opinion become when
the United States entered the war that Air Chief Marshal Sir Wilfred
Freeman, Portal’s deputy, proposed that the B-17 and B-24 be modi-
fied for night operations and be used according to British tactics when
the AAP should be sent to England.206That suggestion received
little support in the Air Staff at Washington. “This must not,” com-
mented one member, “through frequent repetition, lead us to favor
area bombing against precision bombing which accomplishes the stra-
tegic result with fewer airplanes and fewer crews.” ‘07 Nevertheless,
RAF experience with U.S. heavy bombers suggested improvements,
if not radical changes, in both aircraft and operating techniques.
While AAF doctrines were thus under fire, they received a new in-
dorsement from General Chaney. On 5 September 1941 he completed
an analysis of the results of German bombardment in Britain during
1940.’’~The Lufnvaffe’s failure to crush British industry and morale
he attributed to German errors rather than to any weakness inherent
6 0 2