WWII Pre-Flight Training History

This Pa e Declassified lAW E012958
i'

"

ur/et:~~S§fFIED

ARM Y A! R FOR C E S HIS TOR I CA L STU DIE S : No. 4'

in the

, . \
, "-,
...._
- !
_..
-
-
{ . ~...-
, ,
'C
, ,
I - /

/~'

,:6

(/'''~

/ ..

r , ,.

I ~I ~

(" :11;~if1l' ation Cancollcd E} Authority of Th.r~W7j I-l.c:oearch Studies In_gt:i.t\iro

By , ... (:/111 - ID.at~_j;E P. 2. 1, 19Sa£i~

PREFLIGHT

AAF

'f •

I

j

~~,----~

~ ...._.. ......-a'"_._...~- _7"'"

_-_ ~l)he cr:igj n'~l of u'1is rc':)1i :::c!:~ ~ph jJ~d . ..! documents from which it ·n;1.3 l'.Tit :en ar e in

the USAF Historical Division, Archives Branch, t.

14 11

Bldg. 9 j D~axwel1 Air 'Force B~~_~I Al~~'iI:.llla_. ~~--___.

-~______. ...

-~~-- ~.-~ ~

SCANNED BY ISA

AAF HISTORICAL OFFICE HEADQUARTERS, ARMY AIR FORCES

I •

L -

THIS PAGE Declassified lAW E012958


a:~>!? »>
a (I ...
H \lI
~zg9. .-?
'ltj:O
e.e'0'"
- n f!
~nm .:
e::c.r.. t-3
- tJj< ... c: )
~ ,J 0:;; ~ I
'" 0. Z
i:! t':l iii"
g.Ci: I-'l
a ;;I ;:s 9 ,
,) ~ -
Q P"- •

'The orlglm.l.l of this monogr-aph and the documen+s f'r om which it VJ"l$ written ar-e xu

thE? USfI"F Ha s tord ca L Divis':'on, Archives Pl''1.nch, Bld!3!. 914, ~"<L'l{'o;!?ll Air Forf'P 'Rase, Alqb:1ma.

"
..
,
..
C
J-Io
C)
C) I
~
• 01
0
t-...) '<, THIS PAGE Declassified lAW E012958


,,- f,.... ~ 1"\ , I

lJ 1 . 1 ~ u; _. j, J l I, -' -' '-

:.F17 i.IR FGRGli3 HISK':i.ICil.L STUDILJ: ro, 4$

1

..

F?.:::zFUGHT Tatw:nInO n; TiE us, 1939-1944

/I ..

I ..

i.!S Historical Office Headquarbera, IJrrrr,l i:..ir Forces Uovember 1946

•



FOR E ';1 0 R D

This C:.ooount of preflic:ht traLning vzas prepared in the Hi:.torioal Soction of the :J.:.1o' Trainins Conma ... nd Headqu,!":i.rters. It is based upon an G.:J.rlier stud,y- by capt. norman H. C:adwell" It.1rl.ch covers the p(:ir-lod from l In.nuary 1939 to 30 JU1'le 1944. The present imrk, 'written by .P-t£1;.._r:l)Qm::ts_t!~._G~~, extends the period of the study to 31 December 1944.

.,

The history contains discussions of the Eeneral development of the pr~flir.:ht pro~run., curricular changes, instructors and teaching methods, and ~tudents. It deals both with the aca~enic ph~~e~ of pre£li~ht and with military and physical training. In this connection, there is pertinent infor.m.tion on the acad~c view versus the oilitary view. Several doouments providing elaboration on topics treated briefly in the I'larrativc have been a.ttaohed as an afpendix. to the !Io. 1 cOPY" of' this study, lJ.:t' Historical Studies: Ho. 4S, on file :in the .V~ 3iotorical Cr£ice.

,.

Rcnderl'> f'~.miliar ,r1th the subject matter are invited to contribute additional facts, interpretations, and suegestions. For this pvxpose> perforated sheets have been placed at the back of the study •

•


e Declassified lAW E012958

"

, ,l

G 0 f~ T

-:;on ........

T S

I GS1E:1J..L DJiT J..OF:.J:IT OF THE PRCG.1JJ..:.

f

Oriein of th~ Prefli~ht Idoa. • • •• • • • • • • • • •

~stablishment of Preflight 3chools • • • • • • •• •••

Froposnl to Lboli;3h Preflic:ht ••• •• ••

Reoreaniz~tion of Trainine • • • • • • •• ••• • •

II CUP..RICUIA

Initial Proposals and programs • • • • • • • •• ••••

Pilot Preflieht ••••••••••• ••• • • •

~ccdemic Training (Ceneral) ••• • • • • • • • • •

~~then&tics ~~d Physics •• • • • • • • • • • •

!.:nps and Ch9.rts • • • • • • • • ••• • • • •

Code • • • • ... • • • • • • • .. 41 • • • •• • ••••

:..ircraft and :Iaval Recognition • • • • • • • • •

l~ilit3.I"'J Training •• • • • • • • • • • • •

Physical TI"uining • • • • • • • • • • • •

BombD.rdier-:lo.vieator PrefliEht • • •• ••• • • •

Procurement of 'Jivilians •• •••••••••••• 1:i1itarization 0:£ Ll'lstructor Person..11.el • • • • • • • • General Frocure~ent Foliey • •• ••••

Officer Procurement 30~rds • • • • • • • • • • • • •

~u~lific~tions of Instructors •• •• •••••

Instructor rr~ininz. ••••••••• l.:orale • •• .............,... Instru.ction3.1 :::&thods ••••••••••

• • •

· .

• •

• •

. . . .. .

• • •

•

• •

• • • •

~~!Jt orio.llJ I'e"l:.ine :::upervioion

• •

.. . . . .

• •

•

· .. . .

. . . .. .

•

•

• •

•

., . . ...

Cl3.ssifiCf.ttiO"rl ~"rld !.;orru.e Or;::-l.O.i7.<':.. tion • • • • • • •

Honor byst~ •• •••

~J.i..lin&.ti(\'lS 3.I1d Holrlov~rs ~;Valuation of the TraininE

•

•

. . .

· .

· .. . . .

. . . . . .

.. .. . .

. .

•

· .

• • • •

• • •

• • • • •

· .

• • • • •

PrOerc.n •• • • •

.. .

· .. . . .

. . .

•

•• •••••••••

. ,. .. .

GI1i:J3:..J:1Y • • • • • BIBUCG?J~FH"I • • • U.s.:L' 0;::' DCCu:.~:'1":;

. .

.. . . . . . . . . . . .

• •

. . ._ . .. . . . . .. .

• • •

• • •

•

. . . . . .

• •

Il!D~: •• 00 JUU:&lTJ

. .

•


1 :3 4- 5

7 11. 11 15 16 17 18 21 24 27

•

30 32 33 35 37 39 41 42 42 42 44

•

• •

• •

• •

• •

4$ 49 52 54 58

• •

60 61. 66 67 69


UN CI .. J-\SSIFIED

; :..t_1o. ...... i.--~ ~ ""_ ........ '-"':f+

.'l}f!:._.-..AI.~ r'\ -~~ J'

I

J

I r

..

Preflight Training in the AAF I 1939-1944

.i Of

." ..

•

,

( :- ::-=::. '"""::; '-:-~ ~

T T7\l~rr 1 1\ c ... (r~ ~-'~ED

..._I ......, u ,~J'--' ,'l.... J.


This Page Declassified lAW E012958

AAFHS-48

Chapter I

GENERAL DEVELOPliEUT OF TIB PP.DG..W1

The realization of the need for "preflight!! tra.ining goes back to

experience in the first :'1orld \:a1' when the .\m.erican training progr2..."n,

based upon that used by the Canadians, included an eight-wee~ course

in "ground .schools" before cadets wero sent to "flying flchools.1t These

ground schools were established a.t institutiono of higher learning in

_ convenient locations throughout the country.,l In the postwa.r period" hoy/ever, the Army lir Corps relied chiefly upon high educational require-

..

menta to insure a. sound background for aviation cadets, military indoc-

trine.tion being given a.t the £lyine schools.

Origin 2£ ~ Preflirpt ~

'rhe expansdcn cor pilot training and the lowcrine of educational

requirements for flying recruits during Uorld :,~nr II made it desirable

to institute some fona at preflie,ht instruction in order to assure a

common level of academic background and to give newly recruited cadets 2

the fundamentals of military discipline. The man who took the lead

-" '"

a, Col. Edga.r S. Gorrell, Ih.£ Ueasure 2! .wericat s ~ ~~nautical Effort, p. 16. See a.lso llaj. Charles ~i. llowman, ItOutline of Heavier-than-Air Training,U pp. 12" 14, prepared at ACTO, 1 June 1937, in AFIRe Historical Sec. files.

2. Maj. Gen. E. K .. Yaunt'J "Buildine the 1M: Part I, Pre-Flight Toughens Inn," in Aviation, Aug. 1943, p. 124.

1

•



2

in advocating the preflight schools was Brig. Gen. f;:alter R. Ueaver.

General ;;eaverts ideas were undoubtedly based upon the system then being

used by the Canadians, under which trainees were sent to Itmannine depots"

I ft

immediately after recruitment for inocula.tions, the issue of uniforms

and equipnent_, and lectures on sanitation, hygiene, and othor basic sUbjects. The remainder of the time was devoted to intensive physical

training and drill. This program covered a. period of from two to four

weeks, 2.fter ";l1ich trainees were sent to 'tinitial training echcoks" for

a four-week course in Mathematics, Annament, Hygiene and Sanita.tion,

Link: Trrdning, Drill, and Physical Trainine;. There is evidence tho.t higher headquarters woro not easily convinced of the desirability of the Canadian plan" pa.rtly because the establishment of some system of

preliminary training, tnen under consideration for the civilian elenent~rJ nying schools, "',oold supplant the need for that plan.3 On e November

1940 the Chief of the Air Corps announced the adoption of a plan for a

four-week prefiieht program to be set up in the civilian schools, but

this was abandoned a month later in favor of military reception centers ..

Such a reception center for flyine; cadets was to be esb.blished in each training center ~rea_4

Suoh, in brief, is the story of the birth of the preflight proera~.

General "deaver, at lenst" had a very clea.r conception of the aims of

..

. ..

.3. Memo for Gen. H. H. 1.rnold by Maj. R. N. Webster, 12 Aug. 1940, in AFmC Central files; interview with Maj. Gen. Halter R. Ueo.ver (Retired) by Capt. Anson Board, !Jell York, N. Y.,. 14-15 Dec. 1943, in History of Eastern Flying Training Command, 7 Doc. 1941-1 Jan. 1943, vol$ VI, app. [cited as EFTC History).

4. EFTO History, 1 Jan. 1939-7 Dec. 19J~1, vol. II, p. 318.

,

~ ~ .. .__ ~-=:=:==~



3

1#

such a program. In his vievr, cadet.s , aftar preflight training, viould

It arrive nt primary schools, not only 'with proper equipment and inocu12,tions but also with a. thorough indoctrination in ground training and

a. well-rounded academic background. Finally, they would have received the degree of physical conditioning and toughening rcq~site for the difficult period of flying training ahead.5

Establis~nt g1Preflight Schools

On 21 February 1941 authorization was given for the establishment

,

of throe ureplacement training centers, It to be located at l.fa.:lovell Field,

~ Ala" Kelly Field, Texas, a~d lloffett Field, C31i£.6 After the necessar.y construction work j preflight training I3tarted at Maxwell Field on

6 September 1941. At Kelly Field. classes began on 21 Kovem.bor 1941,

but the preflight activity there was moved to the adjacent, newly created San Antonio Aviation Cadot Center (SAACC) on 4 July 1942. Plans

to establish a replacement training center at Moffott Field were canceled

in favor of a site near Santa Ana, Calif. Preflight training at Santa

Ana was started soon after 23 February 1942. The official designation e lIPreflight Sehoolt! wa.s a',uthorized on 30 April 1942, when the term ttreplacelllcnt traininB center" was dropped. 7

5. Interview l'iith Mnj. Gen. t:31ter R. '\1eaver (Retired) by Capt .. Anson Beard, Nel'T York, N. Y., 14-15 Dec. 1943, in 5~bid., 7 Dec. 1941-

1 Jan. 1943, vol. VI, a.pp.

6. t.G 320.2 (1-16-41) U (Ret.) U-C, 21 Feb. 1941 (Doc. 1).. The document s referred to in parerrbhesea in this study \iil1 be found attached to the Ho. 1 copy of MF Historical Studies: NOe 48, 'V .. hich is on

fila in the f~ Historical Offico.

7. History of liaxvrall Field, 1 Ja.n. 1939-7 Dec. 194]., p. 263; Hq. S!'.ACC to CG, GCTC, 7 July 1942, in eFra Centr~l files~ 323~3; History of SAACe, 4 July 191:2-1 llcrch 1944, p. 60; ~,JCTG History" 7 Dec. 194J..- 31 Dec. 1942, vol. II,p,p. 259-60; AG 320.2 (3-24-42) lffi~-AF,

30 April ].942; History of &\MB" activation-31 Dec. 1942" p. 122 ..



AAFH8-4$

Although it. was int.ended at first to give the S3J::l.e preflight tro.in-

ina to pilot and nonpilot aircrew candidates, a later deci~ion caused

the establishm~nt of separate schools. it the Gulf Coast Training Center

i 1/f

only pilot candi.dat en were asal.gned to tho preflight school, a.t Kelly Field (later at ~tCC). A separate school for bombardiers and navig~-

tara "U\.s activated at Ellington Field, Texas, on 20 Septe.mber 1941..

,

The Southeast Training Center likm·JisG differentiated training by

establishing an independent bombardier-navicator preflight school at

.

I.:ax',mU Field on IS 1fay 1942. This orgrmization \']tLS moved to Selw.an

Field, La, , on 14 August 1942. The ... :est Coast Training Center set up S separate schools at the Santa !l.fia Army Air Base on 15 June 1942.

Proposal to Abolish Preflight

The peak of develop:nent of the preflight schools was rea.ched in

the summer of 1943. The college training program (pre-preflieht) reached

its heigh~ at about the same time. It appeared to some observers in Ileadquarters, I~F th~t college traininc obviated the need for preflieht'

schools, end the question of discontinuing them was put squarely before the Ocnmenddng General of the Flying Trainine Command on 29 May 1943.9

The merits of the preflight schools and the reciprocal relations of

preflight and college training were set forth by l.laj .. Gen .. Barton K. Yount in his reply, dabcd 4 September 1943. The points emphasized

.'

8. History of the MiFFS (s-n); Ellington Field, Texas, 30 Sep. 1941-

1 March 19M., pp. 1-2; History of Selman Field, u.ol1I'oe, La, , 15 June- 31 Dec. 1942, pp. 1-3; ~;CTC History, ? Dec. 1941-31 Dec. 1942~

vol. II, p. 283.

9. Hq, A.FFl'C, Stat .. Div., Daily Diary, 7 June 1943, 29 June 1943"

5 Oct. 1943; T;,J:, CG, !..AF to CG" AFFTC, 29 liay 1943, in AFTRC 353, College Training.



5

were the preparatory and supplementary character of the college training

\

e program, tho inadequacy of the staffs and equip:::tent of the colleges to

do the work accoroplished by the preflight schools, and the difficulty

of obtaining standardi~ation among so many college training detachments.IO

The upshot of such considerations vms the decision to discontinue the

college training proer~ and to consolidate preflight training in an 11

expanded IO-week program,

Reorganization £! Trainine

During 1944 the trend in numbers of trainees was downward, and the e organd.satd.on of training was adapted to fit the trend. In April 1944 Training COllll'lland Headqu9.rtars directed that pilot and bombardier-navi-

gator schools be combined; short.ly thereafter a unified curriculum ~QS

issued for all preflight students. The school for bombardiers and navigators ut E11ineton Field \V8S accordingly absorbed by the preflight

school at the San l\ntonio Aviation Cadet Center, and the pilot and

bombardier-navigator organ1.zations at the Santa Ann. Army Air Base were

combined. The new preflieht schools offered identical courses to ~ll e aircrevr candldates. Each school was divided into a "General Pre£lisht" section covering the first. five \'{eek~ of training and an ltAdvanced Preflight" sect-Len covering the second five weeks.l2 The principal

advant.ages resulting from consolldatdon of the preflight schoul.e were

10. Hq. AFTRC to GG, AfiF, 4 Sap. 1943, in lLFTRO 353, Prc£liCht (Doc. 2, this study).

ll. TC Memo; uc, 50-23-1, 23 tiay 1944 (Doc. 9, thio study).

12. TC Menos Nos~ 35-17, 14 April 1944; 50-23-1, 23 May 1944 (Doc. 9, this study); and 50-27-1 .. 12 llo.y 1944.



.'l.AFHs-4S

6

acbrlnistra.tive economy, uniform indoctrination of all aircrew me:nbers,

and greater flexibility in assignment procedure. After the coabination,

students Vlere not assigned finally 0.0 pilots, bombardiers, or navigators

until the latter part of the preflieht course.

The cuJ_~ation of the above steps ~~s a union o~the consolidated schools the:nse1ves. This occurred in the autumn of 1944. Early in

•

October it Vias learned that no further aircre,'l trainees 1rouJ.d be entered

into the preflight schools at Santa tWD. and llaxtTell fields and that o.ll

pre.f.tieht training would in the future be provided at the 11..0.1 Preflight

School at San Antonio Aviation Cadet Center. Selected personnel from

the training departments of the inactivated schools were transferred to San Antonio.l3

, ..

13. HFTC History, 1 Sep.-3l Oct. 1944, vol. I, p. 182; EFTC History, 1 Sep_-3l Oct. 1944, vol. I, p. 73.



AAFH8-48

Ohapter II

curoucULA

At the time the decision rras made to establish the tlreplace:n.~nt

trainine centersll there seem to have been no definite ideas concerning

a..11 instructional program. Mention was made, however!' of instruction

in l1phyoicnl training, military trainine, supervised athletics and the complete processing of nssien.ed students.lll A later letter refers to e such "additional instruction and training as my be practica.ble during tho period allotted (l~ weeks) that 1'lil1 serve to further qualify tr"'-inees for instruction ~,S pilots, bombardiers or navigators.IIZ

Initial Proposals and Programs

In responso to a requcat fr~~ the Ohicf of the Air Corps, the

southeast Air Corps Training Center submitted a proposed curriculum on 27 Juno 1941.3 As finally approved the program called for the following hours of training: 4

Reception and Processing (inaludinz six. hours of test s)

30

"

1. OGA.C to COts, SETC, COTe, and ~:CTO, 1 Oct. 1940, in AFTRO Historical Sea. files.

2. OCAO to COT 5, SETO, CCTO, and \;CTO, 2 Oct. 1940 (Doc. 5, this study), in ibid.

3. Hq. SETC to OCAO, 27 June 1941, in ibid.

4. Pro~wn of Instruction, sent to s~c by OOAO, 2 Sept 1941 (Doc. 6, this study), in ibid.

7



AAFHS-48

Academic Preparation tti.1itary Law Oitizenship Mathematic5

lli.litary Hygiene end First Aid ChemicJ.l i!arfare Defense Current Events

II 2

20 5 2 2

Administrative IndoctrLnation

Customs and Courtesies of the Service 5

Squadron Administration and Command 10

Organiz:l.tion Lectures $

Basic Military Indoctrination

Manual of Pistol 6

Interior Guard DUty 4-

Infantry Drill 20

Ceremonies and Inspections 6

Physical Training

32

TOTAL 163

'~',hile the above program of instruction was being drawn up, ccnatd-

eration was being given to the establishment of a longer period of

preflight training. At a conference in August 1941 attended by the

senior generals of the Ar~ Air Forces, the question \TolS raised as to

whether the program at the cadet replacement training centers should

not be increased from five to 10 w·eek5. The commanders of the three

training centers agreed that such an extension wou'Id be advantageous.

The chief difficulty at the moment was in the shortage of housing space,

though it was su~ested that tents mieht be used to alleviate this shortage. Considerations for increaBing the length of time in preflight

..

training were based upon the desire to put more e~phasis upon the military indoctrination of trainees.5 This proposal vms eventual17 refused,

;. R&R, Ohief, T&O Div., OOAC, to Chicf, Training Sec., T&O Div.,

2$ Aug. 1941, in flAG 352.llH, Oouraee of In:Jtruction; Hq, SDTO to OOAe, 26 Aug. 1941, in AFTRe Historical Sec. files.



9

AJ.FHS-4$

h~ever, because it vro.5 felt that there had been inadequate opporlunity

to test the results of the four-week prcgram and also because a number of military person.tlol·believed a lon~er program would interfere with

the progress of trainLt"lg in the ovent of mobilization for war.

General V:eaver continued to recommend the longer period of tra.in-

Ing , submittin~ a progrsra of instruction for such a course. His

proposal had two objectives: (1) the prepnration of aviation cadets physically and mentally for future intensive training" and (2) the

indoctrination of cadets in the duties of junior officers. To a con-

siderable extent this proeram. represented the Ldeae of the Itmilitary

schoolll ae to the content end scope of pretlieht training; its subject

matter including processing, aca.demic trcdning, and milita1'7 indoctrina-

tion, and the course extended over a period of 10 weeks. The allo~ent of hours was as follows: 6

Basic and ~ilitary Indoctrination 188

(including eight hours of processing)

Genoral Academic Preparation l/~

E~sic Duties of Junior Officers 39

In the meantime the preflight schools at 11a~\'.ell and I~elly fields

had begun to function. Just hoY, closel;r the program of instruction as approved by the Chief of the Air Oorps was being followed is not clear, but at the end of 1941 the 10-weck experimental course was initiated

at Maxwell Field according to the suegestions of General \;e::wer, the

6. P'rogram of Instruction for Avia.tion Cadet, Replacement Centers (Pilot), 17 Sep. 1941, in AAG 352.llH, CourseD of Inst~lction •

.

Ji ;Y~..r.: ~ I~:+-'I''''''''''''__'I'

~~~I~~ t· i ~



I r~ '1

J, "" _ .... ~_ ~~_...., __

1 • j,. 11/

10

program having been given te'ltative approval. It was planned to have similar proerams established in the other centers im~ediately,7 but of

becaus~ developments resulting frau American entry into the war this

plan navel' went into effect.

En.rly in 191+2 conferences were held to discuss problems concemdng

the preflieht program snd to make sugeestions for revision. The first

of bheae conferences was held at Maxwell Field on 2 January 1942 and

Vi3S sttended by representatives of the three tra.ining cenbera, At this

meeting a proposal for 8 nine-week program was made. Although the Gulf Coo-at Training C enter was opposed to the abandonment of the lO-week schedule, it was dropped in favor of the shorter one. a ~dditional

confere'lces dealine v~th the waole trainin~ prograM ware held at

nandolph Field on 12-13 January and 9-12 February 19h2. The first under-

took revision of the flying ctlrricula and the second the reviaion of the

ground school proeram. Out of these conferences come the nine-week pilot

preflight program, which appeared offici.ally on 15 l~rch 1942, and the

outline for a nonpilot prefli~t course. These programs became the

foundation for subsequent curricular develo~~ent.

7. R&R, Training Div. to 1:ilitary Personnel Div., 31 Dec. 1941-, in .hAG 3.53.9I, ?rfdn:ine ill i.-via.tion-Pilot Tro.ininm CCAG to CG, SETe, 1 Jan. 1942, in AFTJC Historical Sec. files.

8. EFTC History, 7 Dec. 1941-1 Jall. 1943, vol. I, pp. 265-66.



Pilot Preflight

11

The pilot course published on 15 !:arch 1942 l','a.s broken down into hours 0.13 follo·\w: 9

..

Academic Instruction

Safeeuardine Military Information

and Cryptoeraphy

17ar Department Publications llilitar-.{ Customs and Courtesios Air Forces

Chemioal 1iarfare Defense Naval Forces

Ground Forces

IdTcraft Idontification Code

CO!l!ll1.unico.tion0

1!a.ps, Charts, and I.erial Photos llo.themati 1~0

Physics

First Aid

Basic Military- Indoctrina.tion 1!anual of Pistol

Interior Cua.rd Duty Infantry Drill

Ceremonies and Inspections

Phyoico.l TraininG

160

:3 2

3

10 2 10 6 s 50

1 12 20 20 13

45

6 4 26

9

_M 250

Academic TrLdnine; (General).. Thi:3 program of instruction repr-e-

sont-ed 0. definite trend toward "acadeni.ce" as oppoeed to General ~:ea.ver' s

I1militaryll prograltl, 'uhich had been tentatively approved. It not only

,

increased the hours giveYJ. to acndemi,c subjects from 144 to 160 .. but the

..

introduction of such courses as 1fu.ps and Charts and Fhysics and the

9. Air Corps Replacement Tminin~ Center (Aircrcw), Program of Instruction, Pilot Trainees, Hq. 1FFTC, 15 uarch 1942 (Doc. 7, this study), in AFTRC Historical Sec. files.



12

AAFHS-48

Lncreaalng emphasio upon Codo and Aircraft Identification are noteworthy.

Then, too, vher-eae General 1:eo.verls pr ogrem had allowed a total of leO

".

hours for Physice.l and llilituI'".f Training, the new one allowed onlY' 90

houre for those subjocts. Some classroom oour eea of 3. military na.ture J

howevcr-, wore included under Itaca.demic instruction. II

Though the nine-week program. was to be initiated lias soon 3.S prac-

t1cable,U it did not take effect until the la.st classes of cadets

scheduled under the old progra~ had finished preflight. Even after

that time the full course was not always e:i.ven because of unforeseen

..

demands for students in order to Neet primary school quotas; Dh~ny were

.'iithdra.vm frcr.n. preflight af'ter they had cOTJlpleted only a fractional

part of the course. The individual preflight schools, furthermore,

exercised their ovm discretion in modifying the official curriculum.

Santo. An{.l., i'or exa~.ple, departed trol'l. the official program by giving

extra. hours to the subject of Air Forcea, bringing it up to a maximum.

of 24 hours instead of the 10 ~llotted. The course in Uaps and Charts was also increased from 12 to 1S hours.lO

Proposal,s were made to de-emphasize the academae phase of the nine-

week program. Lt. Col. Louis A. Guenther, Commandant of the J!axwell

Field pilot school, made 8 strong plea i'or reduction of academic 10-

struct10n in favor of increasing stress upon military training. He

particularly opposed the teaching of aircraft identification, contending

tho.t it could be more effectively taught in the theaters of operations •

...

He believed fewer hours should be devoted to instruction in Code and

10. 'liOTC History, 7 Dec. 1941-31 Dec. 1942, vol., II, pp. 276-77.


questioned the vaJ.ue of' the courses in Physics and Mathematics as then

4It taught. In fact, Colonel Guenther held that "Every other aoademic course might be subjected to the same careful SCI'I;ltiny.tt ;ihRt he urged, of cour-se, was mora 61!Ipha.sis upon military tre.inine.11 "There has been

soma apprehension," he said, lias to \'lhether or not the cadets are in a

fighting spirit, and therefore the benefits in fighting spirit which

might accrue from bayonet drill warrant conaideration of makinz this

a part of the training proeram.lI

On the other hand , other orf'icers were quite as thoroughly con-

vinced that en increasing emphasis should be put upon the academic phase

of the proeram. This feeling was accentuated by the recommendations of

tr:o ~JCll Field officers, Lt. P. P. Dawson and Lt .. D. E .. Ellett, who

visited the Eiehth Air Force in :England in the autumn of 1942. They

recommended that instruction be given in sending code as well 0.6 in

code reception" and that Lncreastng enphaai.s be put upon the t-eaching

of recognition, both of naval vessels and of aircraft. This report had

a great influence upon future trends in the pilot preflight school

program. In December 1942 a. conference of represontatives from the

training centers was held at Fort \;orth, and a nevi preflight program was fo:rmulated .. 12 The standardized program thus created showed that

the hours for "aeademf.e" SUbjects were maintained and expanded as £0110'1'13:13

Identification and Tactical Functions of Aircra.ft

18

"

.

11. CO, MIFFS (pL Haxrrell Field, to 00, SETCj 26 Sep. 1942 (Doc. 8, this study), in AFTRC Historical Sec. files.

12. This 'I'.as first published in FTC ~e!'1.0 llo .. 1, 15 Jan. 1943 J and was reissued as F1C llama No. 50-1-1 on 21 Lpril 1943.

13. EFTC History, 7 Dec. 1941-1 Jan. 1943, vol. I, p. 351; FTC Ue::tO No. 50-1-1, 21 April 1943.



Identification and Tactical Functions

of Uavtu Vessels Cede

Physics Uathem3.tics

1:aps ~ Charts, and A eriAl Photos

12 1:8 24 20 18

...

This program, ordered to be taught to both pilot and bow~ardier-navigator cadets,14 marks the increasL~g stress upon naval and aircraft

recognition, Physics, and llaps and Charts.

TO~3rd the close of 1943 considerotion was eiven to the problem

of the future of pre£1ieht tro.ining, vd.th reference to the relationship

between the prefiight and college training progrems, Proposal.s emanat-

ine from the Santa l.nn Army Air Base recommended that the courses in

Code and Recognition be begun in the colleges and continued in preflieht.

It '\'3.9 also proposed that the elementary phases of Physics, llathematics, 1!aps and Charts, and llilitary Hygiene be included in the college proeram.

Aocording to the~e propo5~ls, preflight would handle the advanced phases of instruction, as, for extl.'Uple, the 10 hours of in5truction on the E-6B computer which was advocated .. 15 These proposals did not receive favor-

able action ..

In the spring of 1944 a Ill3.jor revision of the preflight program

Vias put into effect. The course \las lengthened f't'om. nine to 10 weeks

and was desiEUed for the con~o1idated preflight schools, in which pilots,

bombardiers, and navigators were to receive identical. traininZ+ The

principal change was the addition of a course in Aircraft and Principles

14. FTC l!emo Uo. 50-23-1, 19 Feb. 1943; ~'lFTC History, 1 Jan. 1943- 31 Dec. 1943, vol. I, pp. 170, 189.

15. Hq. SW.J3 to CG, ~;PTC, 9 Oct. 1943, in IlFTC History, 1 Jan. 1943- 31 Dec, 1943, vol. VI, app.



15

of Flight. T'tlis subject, fonnerly taught at primarY1 was put into preflight laree~ to ea~e the ground school burden at the flying SChools.16 Preflight academic subjects were allotted hours as follows:1?

Aural and Vi~~a1 Code Aircraft Reoognition Applied Aero Mathematios

l1aps, Charts, and !eri~l Photos Applied Aero PhysiCS

Naval Vessel Recognition fJLrcraft and Principles of Flight

4S 30 28 24 20 12 12

'I'his curriculum, dated 23 I1ay 1944, re:nained standard Q'1til the end of

the \'r.a.r.

Ma.thematics and Physics. The course in Hath£maties was one of

the most stable of all the academic subjects. It stressed fundamentals

rather than advanced problems. The revised curriculum of ~y 1944 added

instruction on the :G-6B computer to the Mathematics course. The sub-

jcot matter in Physics was likewise on the level of basic principles.

In spite of siTilplicity and sound instruction, howover, the failure rate

in each of these courses "ras hieher than that of any other acedeed,c

subject. llany sbudent s Ylere obviously deficient in the IIfundamentoJ.s.1t

One suegestion for the improvement of this situation was that high

schools be encouraged to intensify the training of students "in mabhe-

matic6 courses to include arithmetic, algobra and trigonometry, also

physics.1t The introduction of the college training program in 1943

16. Interview with Capt. T. H. Greer, formerly Supervisor of Instruction, Preflight School, Sr.f"AB by Oapt. Urn. Habborton, Historica.l Officer, 15 July 1945, in AFTRC Historical Sec. £.iles.

17. TC Memo No. 50-23-1, 23 May 1944 (Do~. 9, this study).



AAFH8-4$ •

I . ~'-"<:D:~_"'_'"

) [:.' II

16

offered hopes of improvemc~t in the background of trainees in Mathematics and Physics, but results were inconclu8ive~lB

MaRs and Charts. The course in Maps and Charts, like that in

PhY'sics, was introduced into the program ae an afterthought, a.ppearing

first in 1942. At first it wa.s only a minor course of 10 hours, but it gradually emerged as a significant subject. It ~~s difficult to

teach, especially in the beginning •. Few instructors knew much about it,

•

and equipment uas almost nonexistent. llanY' training aids, even such

things as the D-4 computer, had to be fabrica.ted. by the instructors themselves, though better ones bectJ.Dle. Il.vai1~ble in time.19

The curriculum of May 1944 increased to 24 the number of hours 11.1-

lotted to 1~aps, Charts, and 1.erial Photos. The course became inareas-

ingly functional, and more "practical e.1Cercisesti were introduced, such

as problems to be ~~rked out on designated maps and aeronautical charts.

At the beginning of the course eaoh cadet was i6~~ed a folder containing

a number of such charts, ~hich he kept throughout the course. The syst~

of ha.'1dJ.ing aeronautical charts and making calculations on them represented

a great irrvrovemcnt over the relatively academic approach .mich had

charactorized the course in earlier days. "The issuance of ~:ee.m.s plotters

also provided for more realism. in the ,iOrk dona by trainees and added to 20

th~ success ui. th \';hich the te:;t.chine vms done •

...

1$. History of S.WiB, activation-31 Dec. 194.2; EFTG History ~ 1 Ja1'l. 1943-31 Dec. 1943, vol.. I~ pp, 225, 232; Hq. AFmG to Lt .. Col. John J. Riley, Brighton Hie:h School, Briehton, tlass., 27 June 1943, in AFTft.C A-3 Div. files; intervie\,1 with capt .. T .. H. Greer by Capt. 'i:m. Ha.bberton, 15 JulY' 194.5, in J..FTRC Historical Sec. files.

19. ~TC History, 7 Dsc. 1941-1 Jan. 1943, vol. I, pp. 245, 361.

20. History of SM..CC, lllaY-30 June 1944, p. 18.



17

~. Code instruction, introduced in 19lJ2, presented numerous

e special problems. There were the usual difficulties during the ei:l.rly period of getting instructors. "Occasionally" qualified cadets had to

be drafted as in:;;tructors.1t The gradine; system f,a.ve trouble a.t first; however, a minim. urn proficiency of eight words per- ninute for aural

reoeption and six words per minute for vi~ual reception was established as standard. The standard l'ms ultimately fL"Ced at six words per minute

for aural sending and receivine and :five \'x>rds per nrimrt e for visual

d' d .. 21

sen me an r'eccavang ..

Code classes VIere generv.lly large and there were many difficulties

in instruction. Tae baai,c problem seemed to be the limited number of

hours that were given to the subject, Do-story of which depended upon

repeated practice rather than general intelligence. In most cases

shortage of equipment wa.s also serious at. t.he beginning. One expedient

used at sanca Ann 1'or a brief period ,tas that of collecting old phono--

graphs and using them to play recordings of code to classes which were

then being held in barracks.

-

Various experiments were tried in an attanpt to fa.cilitate code

learning, although the conventional system of learning through repetition

!

...

was continued. Better equipment, extra practice, and tho reduction of' proficiency standards to six words per minute for aural receiving and sending were responsible 1'or marked reduction in failures in code.22

zi, EFTCl History j 7 Dec. 1941-1 Jan. 191+3, vole I" p. 360; History of ShlutB, activation-31 Dec. 1942, p. 210; ibid., 1 Jan.-29 Feb. 1944, pp. 38-39.

22. Ibid., activation-31 Dec. 1942, pp. 145-46; ibid., 1 Jan.-29 Feb. 1944, p. 51 ..



18

AAFH3-4S

Aircra.ft and na.val Recognition. The program. of the early replacement trainine centers g~ve no time to instruction in necognit1on~ and

when the subject appeared it flUS bound up with the couraen in Air Forces

and Naval Forces. It began to coma into its ovm early in 1942, although

there was considerable skepticism concerning the course. Soon the

quality of instruction was improved, but the early courses were too

a~itious in scope, Instructors showed ingenuity in the collection of

materials and the fabrication of models. In spite of obsolete field

manuals, it was possible to keep information fairly up-bo-dabe through

the use of current magasdnea, The program of 21 April 1943 eave

prominence to both Aircraft Recognition and Naval Recognition, \v.ith

the chief emphasis upon the former. Reports from the combat theaters

contiID~ed to emphasize the need for more and better instruction in

identification> and a recognition section ~u3 set up under the Assistant

Chief of' Air Staff', Trainine. In July 1943 the Trainine Command ordered the Lircraft Recognition course increased to 30 hours.23

The trend was toward emphasizing British and l'1.merican planes, thus

limiting the scope of the course. There wa5 n. strone tendency_, however,

toward extendine recoenition t-rad.ning at that time. One request was made

that work in flair-ground recognitionll be give!) to include air-ground

. "

2.3. Hq. ~\FPS (p), liaxvroll Field to CG> SETC, 26 Sap, 1942 (Do~. 8, this stuqy), in AFTRC Historical Sec. files; memo for Gen. B. K. Yount by Col. K. P. llcUaughtonJ 16 Hov. 1942, in ibid.; EFTG History, 1942, vol. I, pp .. 357-58, 392; TIJX, CG, LETRC to CG'sJ Trainine Centers, 13 July 1943, in AFTRC A-3 Div. files; CG,

AAF to CG, ;~FTRG, 30 Aug. 194.3, in illS ..



AAFHS-4$

19

visual signals, but this sue:gestion i as disapproved bY' 'rraining Command ,24

Headquarters ..

Uaval officers were originn.lly brought in to give instruction in

tIaval Identificlltion:> end sie;nif1cant contributions VTere made by these

men. In r~ove:nber 1943 the Haval llecognition cour-se W3.S expanded to

include instruction in merchant, veasel,e and Landf.ng craft as rrell e.a

in ships of the line. ::lrly in 1944 teaching by genera.l type and nationality of ships, rather than by the former method of identifyinc individual classes, Wo.s institutod,.25

Tho mothods of teaching recognition i'rent through a verita.ble revo-

lution. In the beginninfb tho English ':iI:F'l' syste:n rras follo\'led in the

courses in Aircraft Recognition, instructors using such teaching aids

as ptctur-ea, silhouettes, and handmade models. Lo.ter, stal'lmrd models

became available, and by late 19h2 these represented the customary

beachtng uid. English methods were studied carefully LTl 1942 by

officers sent to E.'1g1and to attend the 110. :3 School of General Recon-

naissance at Blackpool. L~te in 1942 aelected instr~ctor5 were sent

to Ohio State University to study the Renshaw system of "flash recogni-

tion .. 1t The \Jest COo.st Air Corps Training Center ordered this fly-stem.

into use early in 1943, but delays necessarily followed because of lack of e;uipmcnt. It was not until l~te 1943 that sufficient projectors,

24. Lt. Col. P. C. potter:> Director of Ground Trainin3, Hq. {~FTG to Capt. Gene Raymond, 9 June 1943, in AFTRG A-3 Div. files; 1st ind. (Hq. Al:]' to CG, tlFTRC [undated]), Rq .. '.FTRC to co, ti.~F, 19 July 1943, in ibid.

25. :eFTC History, 7 Dec. 1941-1 Jan. 1943, Tlo1. I, pp, 390-91; TO llemo no. 50 ... 26-3J 30 !love 1943; History of SAA.filS, 1 Jan. 19l:.3-31 Dec. 1943, pp. 135-36, eFTC History, 1 Jan. 1944-30 June 1944, vol. II, p. 236.



\"iJ~,,~ 4~ o~_~"t; t

lIJI~-l! ~"t* !~~ ~

,

20

AAFHC-4$

shutber-s , screens, and slides were a.vilable to institute the Rensha.w 26

system in all schoot.s, In the meantdme many instructors had been

or were being trained in recoenition at the Central Instructors S~hool

at Randolph Field.

A serious problem in ccnnectd.on with the teaching of the flash

system. was that of darkening and ventilating classrooms. Durlne; the hot weather when windo'l'o"B had to be closed and shades drolvm (if the

vdndcws were left up, the shades '7oald blow back and forth, allowing light to enter), eKcessive hea.t and lack of ventilation made these class-

room::! almoot unendurable. "Both the instructors and the cadeba left the classes literally soaked with perspirat1on.1t27 The use of shutter::!

in place of shades at Santa Ana greatly improved ventilation.

The necessity of blacking out classrooms created not only a prob-

blem of vontilation, but also one of visibility, for students needed to

,

be able to 'Vldte as well ae to see the screen. At Santa Ana an arrange-

menb was worked out l'ihereby low-watt bulbs were inserted in ceiline;

sockots. These provided sufficient illumination for students to ~Tite

what was necessary but did not blur the L~Se on the screen. Various

types of screens wore devisod to improve vioibility and to obviate the

bl~okoutJ considerable difference of opinion existing as to the efficacy 28

ot theoe devices •

. ~

...

26. Hq. AAF to personnel involved, 22 hue. 1943, in AFTRC Historical Sec. files; \'JFTC History, 1 Jan.-3l Dec. 1943, vol. I, pp .. l77-?8; ~:CTC Training llemo 4, 25 Jan. 1943, in ~." vol. VI, app.; T.iX, AFTAD to Lt. Col. Fredorick C. Carr, AFTAD Liaison Officer,

14 JulY' 1943, in I.FTRe A-3 Div. files; T;JX, CG, EFTC to CG, t~c, 20 Sap_ 1943, in ibid.; r..oc, CG, CEo'TC to CG, APTRC, 20 Sap. 1943, in ibid.

27. EFTC lIistory, 1 Jan.-31 Dec. 1943, vol. I, p. 235.

28. History of s..WI.B, 1 Uay-30 June 1941h PP' 189-90.



, .. ...

Al\.FHS-48

21

1ti.litary Training. The course of instruction in military training

remained one of the most important and most controversial of the entire

preflight proerem. Both military and physical training were stressed from the ~eginninB.. /J..though the official program for the cadet replacement traininZ centers as set up in S~pta~er 1941 called for only 20

hours of Infantry Drill, there were numerous other courses in related

~

subjects 'which more than doubled the tot.s.l hours spent in military

training. As a matter of fact the schools from the start prob2blY exceeded the number of hours prescribed for mil~tary training.29 The standard program of 21 April 1943 provided the following hours of military instr-a.ction:30

Basic llilitary and Officer Trainine

Close Order Drill 45

Ceremonies 9

Inspections 9

Customo and Courtesies of Eilitsry

Servico 4

Honor Indoctrination 1

Interior Guard 4

Chemical ~:arfare 8

17ar Department Publications 3

S:J.feeuarding 1!ilitary Infe'rr.acttion 2

Ground Forces 5

Thompson $ub-~achine Gun, .45-calibor 4

Rirle, .22-caliber 4

Pistol, .. 45-caliber 4

Bro'l'mine ~!aehine Gun, .. 30-caliber _Jt

TOThL 110

The a.llotnent of hours to the basic military subjects remained

practica.lly unchanged when an integrated military program, covering all

phases of a.ircrew trainin[h i'.'UB published on 12 fuay 1944. lio important revision followed this publication.,1

29.. UCTC History, 7 Dec. 1941-31 Dec. 19J~, vol. II, pp. 275-76.

30. FTC 1::e.'D.O no. 50-1-1, 21 April 1943.

31. TO Hemo No. 50-27-1, 12li~y 1944, 13 April 1945.



22

From the becinn:ing cadets not only were eiven the reeuJ.ar military

drill and course in::;truction, but marched to and fro.'U classes, and

military fO:nn3lity Via::J maintained in the classrooms. Between olasses

academic instructors patrolled the cla38room arcas to enforce discipline.

,

section marchers were rcbat ed da.ily at the So.nta. Ano. pilot school to

eive individual cadets practice and experience in coremand, At this

school officers had alf:o been required to five IIconduct grades" on class

formations. Among other methods at inculcating military discipline

Vias that of emphasizing parades. At Santa Ana, retreat, formal guard

mount J and the Sund2.Y parade were steadily omphaai.scd and irnpro,sd, and

cadet bands were or-gani scd to encourage such exercises. An l1E-flagl1 was givon to improve cQmpetitive spirit.32 Other schools used similar

practices.

In general the system of grantinc; demerits sufficed to enforce dis-

cipline. Violations of regulations not involving honor were handled

by this method. Punishment under demerits consisted of admonition" reprimand, restriction to limits, deprivation of privile~es~ punishment

tours, or loss of leaves. itA tour oonsisted of walking~ on open post"

at attention on a presoribed course for one hour~ in the unifonn of the

day plus gloves, field belt and bo.yol'let soabba.rd." In 1942 the Flying

Training Command ordered the tra.ining centers to refer cases involvinc

abreo.ch of' moral or disciplinary codes of' sufficient oagnitude 0.9 to

cause cessation of' flying tra.iningtl to court-martinI prior to roferrLl'lZ

,.

.'

32. EFTC History, 7 Dec. 1941-1 Jan. 1943" vol. I, pp. ,36S-69; History of' st~AAB~ activation-31 Dec. 1942, pp .. 138, 162, 202.

" ",



AAFHS-4S

23

such cases to en elimination board.33 Usually" however , it seems to have

been the policy to avoid courts-martial if possible.

The general discipl~~e of preflieht graduates \V<aS subject to cri-

ticism from many quarters. nIt was apparent trainees had not been sui'-

ficiently impressed ~~th the necessity of becoming officers ~s well as pilots.1t This eitua:bion vras due in the min to the rapid expansion of

the program and the li .. nitation of timo.. In July 1944, how'ever, Brie. Gen. K. P. l1cUaughton, Chief of Staff of the Trainine Command, expressed the

bolief that ures:ronsibil:i:ty ror disciplinary failure cen be directed

tOl;a.rd senior officers who fail to require proper milita.ry courbesy from

junior officors," who, in turn, lIallow breaches of discipline and courtesy

from enlisted pcrsonnel.H Ao a remedy for this condition, it was

recon:mended that carefully selected combat officers "be utilized 3..t pre-

flight schools to present military discipline and leadership orientation lectures.tl34 Evidence is Lacking concerning the extent to 'I'Jhi.ch the

recommendation ~nS implemented or the success which it achieved.

Althoueh the military trs.ining of aviation cadets during the war

did not produce officers in the 1Jest Point and Randokph Field tradition,

it Ls hardly sound to judge results by those standards. Tra.inine during

the \'Tar ymfi on a mass basis, without the high degree of selection pre-

vailin~ in peacotdne, Furthem.ore, the v:ar objective VIas relatively

:.

3;, CF:rC History, 1 Jan.-31 Dec. 1943, "01. VI, pp. 1251-52; 3d ind .. (Co.det Landd.s - ••• Smith to CG, M.F, 12 Bep_ 1942, thru channels), Hq. AFFW to CG, loAF, 29 Sop. 1942, in AFTRC Historical Sec. fi1eo.

34. eFTO History, 1 Jan.-31 rea. 1943, vol. VI, pp. ~219-20j t~TC History, 1 Jan.-31 Dec. 1~43, vol. III, pp. 605-06; Report on Conference on Preflight Trainin,z, Hq. A.FTRC, Fort ;;orth, Texas, 10-11 July 1944, in AFT.RC Historical Zec. files •

., , • ...,r.<' ..... _~._~

, -,



narrow and specific. Yount.: civilia..Y).o hnd to be trained by the hundreds of thous:L'ldo to fly and ficht. Tho milita.ry tro.;ninc; they received

..

suffioed for the ncco~plio~~ent of th~t mission; the fact that ~Y' of

the war-trained flyers >'lere not well-rounded officers is perhaps c.

'f

little beside the point.

Physical Tminin,~.. Thl£' physical training prograra was at first

under the direct jurisdiction of the &tation conaanding officer; in 1942

it "as desiGna.ted 0.5 a functd.on of EpGcial services. l, few months later

it was re:noved :from tho jurisdiction of special services s and a new

comprehenedve proerru!l. wae outlined. Physical trainil'le; units were set up under appropriate personnel in each 3ir force and in each command.35

In the c3rly replacement training centers three or four hours of

calisthenics were given weeJrJ_y with about four hours \'leeYJ_y in team

eamcs and tho same amount of time in inc1ividuul sports. The tendency

tov~rd cross-country runnin~, obotaclC*course ~urk, and other special

exercises became carkod in 1942. M;P Regulation 50-14j 23 Septe.m.ber

1943, made a. minimum of six hours of physicc.l training mandatory for 36

tAll trai.necsc.

At Maxwell Field notable experimentation wao c~rried on in pnysical

training i1'lstruction. l\S Capt. Lex U. Fullbright, "I'm" was la.rgely

responsible for the progrp~ there, described the situation: !;;e could

do most anyt,hine vrlth the cadet s as Long as we didnt t kill them and

35. aFTO History, 1 Jan.-31 Dec. 1943, vol. VI, pp. 11$1-82.

36. AAF Reg. No. 50-14, 23 Sop. 1943. The previous [J.F R9e;. ne, 50-14, 15 AUg4 1942, had required eight hours of training weekly distributed over a minimum of' six days per vleek, but this had rarely been met.

,



25

itt s a wonder we didntt kill some in the beginning." Emphasis was put

upon the competitive features of 8mnes~ many of which were altered

~

lr.ithout regard to standard rules in order to accentuate competition.

Coordina.tion drills, designed'to develop "peripheral vision," were a'Lso

stressed. In the Culf Coast Air Corps Training Center, softbo.ll rulE;s

were modified so ~s to allow greater individual participation in the

game. :.nother significant innovation was the developm.ent of the "con-

tinuity system" in the conduct of calisthenic exercises.

~lall Field's "Bumo. Roed" was an important development. General

Weaver ea.rly had favored str<nlOUS road work, ordering a four- or five-

mi.Le hike per day for five days ;'reakly with a large amount of running.

This proved impractical and unpopular. The ItEum:l Road" idea was con-

ceivcd us 0. modification "nob only to give the cadets a run, but to

eivc them. one llith na.tural obstccles such as climbine hills, descending

hills and turning and twistinC.n "Burma Road" got some unfavor,""ble publicity, but gcneral~ it seems to have been a success.3?

Intramural programs lrere encouraged 1 the S:mta Ana achooke having

hnd the best developed proeram in this respect. In general the author-

ities fro~ncd upon contests outside the field or station, but emphasized intramural track, basketball, and softbal1~3S

Aquatic training vas af.so encouraged by General :leaver j who asked

-. for the conetruction of' a swimming pool at the time of the establishment

37. Intervic\I vrlth Capt. Lex ~J. Fullbright by Lt. John E. Faee end set. llilton Sacks, in EFTC Hi&tory, 7 Dec. 1941-1 Jan. 1943, vol. VI, app.; EFTC History, 1 Jan.-31 Dec. 1943, vol. I, p. 264; C~TC History, 1 Jan.-3l Dec. 1943, vol. VI, pp. 1149-52; EFTa History, 7 Dec. 1941-1 Jan. 1943, vol. III, pp. 1199, 1205. TO li~m.o

No. 50-21-2, 27 Aug. 1943, stressed cross-country v~rk cs well

as obstaclo couroes.

3$. History of Siu:.iill, 1 Jiln.-31 Doc. 1943, pp, 1l~6" 200-01.



26

of the replace.1]ent training center at ~ax\'le11 Fiald, and, beginning

~nth Class 4l-E, roquired a 5~2mming test for graduation. Santa Ana,

becaUDC it had excellent facilities near at hand, pioneered in sv~~g

tests, inflation of clothing, SVtimming throueh burninB oil, and exercises

in artificial respiration. Great concern over the lack of aquatic train-

ing arose in 1943 as a result of news reports fraN the Pacific theaters

indico-ting the great need for such irwtl'Uction. Surveys were made of

facilitios J and suggestions made for construction priorities at such

posts as Ellington Field and the San Antonio Aviation C~dot Oenter.

In Juno 1943 aquatic teats and remedial traininc; 'Vlere required by the ~e5t Coast Training Center.39

..

Record keeping on the results of physical training W"'.s begun at ~~a."I{well Field but wa s later abandoned, partly because of the laborlin-

• I

vol ved" but af.so because such knowledZ€I vms not so inportant after the

proera~ lVUG established. In the Gulf Coast TrainincOenter, the so-

I

ca.lled ItJ.O .R. II test a (test.s in jumping" chinning, end running) wore

siven in 1941-1942, but wer~ discontinuod on 15 1:ay 1942. It waa not

L

until 194.3~ however, that the testing program really eat under way .. Tests for "motivation and interest" were provided fOr by the Gulf Coa.st

TraitU,ng Center in January 1943. Then came MF ReeuJ.ation 50-10,

28 April 1943, providing for periodic tests desiened to measure physical

"
.
of'
.39't
..
~
~ fIg, SETa to aChe, 23 1.!ilY 1941, in i.FTRC Historical Sec. files; History of lJi.FPS (p), SAAAB~ 15 June 1942-1 Ja..l1. 1943, pp .. 52-53; . eFTC History, 1 Jan.-31 Dec. 1943, vo.l., VI, PI". 1157-59; History of StdJU3, 1 Jan.-31 Dec. 1943, pp. 144-45. Eventually excellent

facilitien v;ero to be prov.ided at ruCG. trot.hine; was done at Ellington Field ..



27

fitness inprovement. Preflight cadets were required to t~ke those tests during the laet two weeks of their course.40

TC Uem.o 50-21-10, published in llovember 1944, outlined in detail

the athletic tra:ining for preflifht~ Tnis memorandum VlaS one of a.

aeries vmich standardized phyaieal exerciso at every phase of aircrew

training. It directed thnt every effort be made to attain the following kl proficiency sta~dQrdD by the time of completion of preflight:

1. Ability to run aao yards in 2 rn4nutos and 45 seconds or less and to sprint 300 yards in 45 seconds or less •

•

2. Ability to accomplish the prescribed performance standard of as many of tho survival aquatic skillo listed in luiF Letter 50-57 as practicable within the limits of' the t\'.'B1ve periods allotted to this phase of training.

3. Co:npletion of the parachute landing training program. prescribed in T. C. !!:emoro.ndum 50-21-7, llwith adequate skills and knowledge essential £01' landing follovdng emareency parachute escape. II

Bombardier-Navigator Preflight

From the beeinning there v~s controversy over tho question of

vmether pilot and nonpilot students should receive the same preflight

course. Va.riation~ were pennitted in the curricula of the pilot and

"

bombardier-navigator preflight schools until 21 April 1943, vJhen the

prescribed program f'or all trainees was made the same. Even aftor that

date, however, the bombardier-navigator schools recomm.ended differentia.-:-

t1on, and they modified the subject emphasis in their courses to suit h2

the needs of their student~.

40. Fu11bric:ht interview; CFTC History, 1 Jan.-31 Dec. 1943" vo.l , VI, pp. ll44-45, 1175-76.

41. TO llemo Ho. 50-21-10, 9 Nov. 1944..

42.. FTC !.femos HOD,. 50-1-1, 21 April 1943, and 50-23-1, 19 Feb. 1943; interview Hith Capt. T. H. Greor by Gapt. ·Iim. Habberbon, Historical Officer, 15 July 1945, in l~TRC Historical aoe. filos.



28

Tho first stan~rd proZram for bomb~rdier-n~viBator preflight

schools, as distinguished from pilot preflight, vm.s approved in the

special eround school revision conference at Pxmdolph Field on 12 Februar;, 1942. It co.1.1ed for the followin~ hours of instruction:43

TOTAL 354

This program was similar to the one specified for pilot preflisht,

but tho eaphaed.e was slightly different. Subjccts eivcn eree.ter stress

Military Training

Infantr,y Drill and Inspection Athletics

Ch€micnl ~!.lrfare

Military Discipline and Customs and Courtesies

Sa.feguarding Ui..litary Information ~rar Department Publications

•

Acadeoic Training Ma.ps and Oharls Photoeraphy

International llorse Code (J'.t.1J.ral and

Visual)

Communications Procedure Tnreet Identification

tlavcl. Forces and Ship Recognition Ground Forces

Air Forces, Aerial Reconnaissance,

and Aircraft Identification Oryptography

Flne;5 of all l~D.tions, Insienia Mathematics

Physics

lleteorology-

Practical ~ercises in Dynthetio Training

HoU'I'C

4ir 54 6

3 2 2

8 6

48 10 10 14 15

25

5 2

34 1$

34 10

:

were Air Forces J Naval Forces, GroWld Forces, 1b.thomatics, and Comounica-

tions. Photography, Target Identification, Meteorology, and Synthetic

Trainiu8 were not included a.t all in the pilot curriculum. The tota.l

43. Air Corps Replacement Center (&'urcrcw) Proe;rem. of Instruction, Course for Aircraft Observer Candidates, in ibid.



i ! r ,.. "" ~

i .... I~~~ ~?M.IIMi;~

29

number of training hours scheduled ~~s considerably greater for the

bombardier-navigator program, which was increased to a total of 422 hours in the revised proer~ of 30 september 1942.44 The latter prograo

marked the high point of difference between pilot and bornbardier-navigator curricula. It re.;nained in effect until 21 April 194-3" when all

pref1ieht instruction was made to follow the same outline.

e .

..

41~. ~~TG History" 7 Dec. 1941-31 Dec. 1942, vol. II, p. 285.



30

AAFHS-48

. ,~

r l" ;~~;~ ,&/; ..... j ) ...

Chapter In INSTRUCTORS AND TEACHING METHODS

Among the chief problems in launching the preflight sohools was

that of procuring instructional staffs adequate to conduct the academic program. From the beginning it was realized. that dependence could not

be placed upon available military personnel for all the instru~tors

needed. Even had their numbers been adequate, the qualifiea.tions of

these men as teachers, especi~ with respect to teaching experience,

were so lovr tha.t their exclusive use ,'.'Cul.d not have been justified.

The only answer to the problem. seemed to be that of calling in civilian personnel.1

Procurement 2! Oi vilians

Authority to hire civilians was request'ed by General Hea.ver on

1 July'1941. After approval had been granted, civilian personnel were at first seleoted by school commandants or directors of training. Most of the teachers were hired as junior instructors at ';;2,000 a year, a1-

though. some, in particular those with Civil Service ratings, were hired as assistant instructors at $2,600. Men were contacted through inter-

views held at the post and through trips to schools. At Santa Ana the

1. History of Maxwell Field, 1 Jan. 1939-7 Dec. 1941, pp. 264-66.



AAFH5-4S

31

general rule was followed that men procured must have a college degree and at least three years ot beaching experience. It was indicated that

I ~

men brought in as junior instructors would be proaobed to the grade of assistant instructor as soon as possible. At lla.xwell Field some 30

civilian instructors" most of whom were college or high school teachers,

were engaged before the opening of the pilot preflight school. They were given a t".'O-week course in Infantry Drill and in Customs and Courtesies of the Service and left largely to themselves in the matter of drawing up lesson materials.2 Under conditions then prevailing at

Maxwell Field, :instructors taught five to six classes daily for three

weeks and then were free for a week and a half. As new instructors

arrived the teaching load gradually fell until it averaged no more than

two classes a day. Civilian instructors were given no duties other than

meeting classes and grading papers, though extra duties were soon assigned

to military instructors.

Although the morale of civilian instructors was at .first high (many

men who came in as civilian instructors at salaries of e2,OOO or :')2,,600 were better off financially than they had been in CiviUan positions):I discontent grad.ual.ly developed.. This was true particularly among late

arrivals. They found themselves under the supervision of men hired

earlier, whose qualifica.tions \'Iere in some instances inferior to theirs.

When commissioning of civilians began, there were long delays and. uncertainties which v~re not conducive to good morale.3

2. SETO to CiAO, 1 July' 19U, in AAG 35.3.901, Training, General; History of BAllAD, activation-.3l Dec. 1942, pp, 124, 172-74; EFTO History, 1 Jan. 19.39-7 Dec. 1941, vol. II, p. 325.

3. History of l!6X\vell Field, S Dec. 1941-31 Dec. 1942, p. 576.



32

The course of development of the preflieht schools was such as to

~ ~ake the use of military personnel for instructors increasingly advisable. This situation was a result of the militarization of the schools

and not neces6arlly a reflection upon civilian instructors as such.

Consequently, nearly all civilian instructors were eve'ltually to obta.in

cormf.ssfons, to enter the military or naval service as enlisted nen"

or to return to ~ositions in civil life. Some schoo1s~ however, con-

tinued to employ limited numbers of civilian instructors. At the Zan

Antonio Aviation G~det Center most of the remainine civilian instructors

were in the code depart~ent. In the S~ta lilla schools, however, civilian

instructors were never employed to teach code, but a few were retained 4-

in some of the other ground school departw£nts.

Civilian instructors WGre eventu9.l1y authorized to wea.r the regu-

lation amy officerl s uniform (shirt. and trousers only), without military

insignia.. A badge of identification "WaS usually worn on tne shirt.

By a sort of fiction the civilian instructor bec~~e a 501dier, sub~tting

voluntarily to the regime of military discipline alone with the military personnel.. He also act-ed under orders in much the same manner. 5

trill tarization 2f. Instructor Personnel

As mentioned above, the militarization of instructor personnel

became the natural tendency in the course of development of the preflieht

4. crrc History, 7 De,c. 1941-:31 Dec. 1942, vol. III, p. 356; BFTC Histors, 1 Jan.-31 Dec. 1943, vol. I, pP. 170-71.

5. History of stJUWB, activation-31 Dec. 1942, p. 175; Conference, Office of the Corru:w.ndine General, .1FFTC, 8' Dec. 1942, in 1.FTRC Historical Sec. files; re!uniscences of 1st Lt. ', •• H. Dusenberry and Capt. A .. R. Kooker, fonner instructors, Sli..\b.B, 27 Sep, 1944, in APTI.G Historical Sec. files.



33

'"

schools. It was believed preferable to have officers instruct cadets wherever practicable. At the conference on preflight training held at Fort ~lorth~ Texas" on 10-1l July 1944 the situation was summed up as

6 follows:

Officers are more desirable as academic instructors than enlisted men or oivilians. Civilians now giving satisfactory service should not be released" but replacetlents for them. should be officers. Enlisted instructors are being utilized satisfactorilY in Code olasses" but it is desira.ble to have an officer in charge of such classes.

General Procurement PoliOle Uith the outbreak of war on 7 December 1943-, the need of all branches of the service for officers of special

e qualifications was :tar out of proportion to the number of military personnel a.vailable. Consequently, the War Department decided that qualified individuals 'WOuld have to be procured from civilian occupations.7 The general. policy which evolved to govern the appointment of officers from. civillii'e was based upon the following principles: (1) no appointment

would be considered unless it was under an approved procurement objective;

(2) no civilian was to be appointed if his induction had already been ordered under the Selective Service Act; (3) no appointment was to be

given to a man who was not a graduate of a school or course of instruc-

tion qualifying him for a. commission "unless evidence is furnished that

the individual has special qualifications for duty as an officer in the particular assignment for Vlhich recolIllll.ended"; and (4) no man would be

6. Report- on Conference on Preflight Training, 10-1l July 1944, Hq.

AF,rRC, Ft. ',;orth, Texas, in AFTRC Historical Sec. files.

7. Mano for C/AS by Ae/AS, A ... l, 19 Dec. 194J., in AAG 2l0.JI-l, Appointment.

I I ... ~\

',j : IX I, l'


This P

e Declassified lAW E012958

~ ..

34

MFHs-48

appointed who was under 30 years or age "unless he has extraordinary

~ professional or technical qualifications for the particular assigriment tor mieh recoeaended, tI It was further stipulated that a commission

should not be granted in any- case in which the Itproposed duty is being 8

or can be adequately performed in a civilian capacity.!!

The prinoiple that direct commissions were not to be granted to

men under 30 years of age caused considerable difficulty so rar as the preflight schools were concerned, especially in view of the fact that the Navy was offering cO!llIDissions to such individuals, and so attract-

e ing them from the Army schools. lrireply _to a request by the Southeast Air Corps Training C enter that this provision be removed, higher nead-

quarters granted authorization to send such instructors to the Officer Oandl,d;J.!..e School regardless of the time which a. man had served ae an enlisted man. In other words, such men could be enlisted and sent

immediately to OOS. Furthermore, it was possible !lto have the reconmended candidates" enroll in OGS and be commissioned without completing the course.

Thus there was established a short cut by which men under 30 years of

age might be enlisted, assigned to a command, and then sent immediately to OOS to be commissioned.. This policy was shortly abOlished, but not before a substantial number of the instructors at Maxwell Field had been

commissioned under it. Restrictions upon commissioning of younger

instructors, together with' ather difficulties, retarded commissioning

to such a degree that by the end of the year 1942 only about 5; per cent

8. AG 201.1 (21 Jan. 1942), RB-A, 26 Jan. 1942.

; tl~t ..

! ~," ~_ ~ 1 -

" .



AAFH8-4S

35

of the total preflight instructor personne~ was co:nmissioned. EventuaJ.ly,

e most of the men under 30 received their commissions atter taking the regular officer candidate course at tlami Beach, Fla. In the case of older men the emphasis was put upon direct cozr.missioning, followed by the six-week course of training in the oas at Hiami Beach. Some in-

structors, regarcUess of age, who were ineligible i'or commission

(generally for physical reasons) were enlisted and retained in that 9

status.

Officer Procureaent Boards. The V;sr Department allowed the train-

ing centers to contact candidates for commissions and to present their own recommendations concerning appointments.. The country' was 'divided

into zones for this purpose, and the training centers created special procurement boards to seek out applicants.10 A good example was the so-called Snyder Board established in the Gulf Ooast Training Center.ll

This board operated mainly in the midwestern and southwestern states. In its campaign for officer procurement the SQyder Board faced keen

9. Cemo for Chief, Personnel Div.,. SOS by AC/AS, A-l, B June 1942~ in MG 210.lK-l, Appointments; AC/AS, A-l to CG, AFFTC, .31 July 1942, in AAG 2l0.1K-2, AppointmentG; memo for AO/S, 0-1 by S/~'i, 29 Aug. 1942, in AAG 210.11, Appointments; EFTO History, 7 Dec. 1941-1 Jan. 1943, vol. I, p. 366; interview'r;ith Capt. T. H. Greer bY' Oapt..

rim. Habberton, Historical Officer, 1$ April 1945, in AFTRC Historical Sec. files.

10. Interview \'Ii th Ma.j. A.. B. House , A-l Di v.,. AFTRC by Oapt. A. V.

House, Jr., Historical Sec., A-2 D1v ... AFTRC, 21 Aug. 1943, in AFTRC HistoricaL Sec. flies.

11. The first Sn1der Board VrclS created 25 April 1942 by SO No. 93, par. 13, Hq, GCTO. It l'JaS headed by Lt. Col. lUva li. Snyder, who ~as assisted by tyro other members. This first board remained in power for 90 days and was succeeded by a seco~TRoard, also headed by Colonel SQfder, whicnhad power for 60 days._/History, 1 Jan.-

31 Dec. 194.3, vol. r, p. 174.

;~-"'l,_~ !"_iC .._\ ~ -i<'

lll!:) r-l" I I'



AAFHS-4S

.36

competition tro;n the Navy as well as considerable competition from the

various college training programs Vihich were absorbing additional man.- 12

power. Any attempt to evaluate the work of the board must be made

with consideration for the handicaps under which it worked. Undoubtedl.y,

the men who did the field work, faced with vigorous oompetition, were te)I1pted to make their own proposition somewhat more attractive than the faots warranted, particularly in regard to assurances concerning rank

and promotions, not to mention assignments. It has also been charged

that the board was not careful enough in its investigations and inter-

views and that it flallowed the propinquity of Texas to consciously sway its selection of' a large number of small town high school and some grade

school, teachers .. " But even more serious were the charges brought against

the board with respect to its policies in recommending men for c~~ssions.

ttHow the men were chosen for commissions in the first place, and how the Board decided to commission a man as a second or a first lieutenant remains a mystery.1I13 On the other hand, the fact remains that the Snyder Board (and similar boards in the other training centers) did

procure the necessary personnel to accomplish the ground school training

mission.

In the Southeast Training Center two procurement boards were created.

These boards traveled chiefly in tho northeastern area, visiting .schools

r .

"

12. History 0:£ Ellington Field, April 1940-1 March 1944~ vol. I,

pp. 61-68; CITe History, 1 Jan.-3l Dec. 1943" vol. I, pp, 17~76; Hq. AFFTC, Daily Diary" A-l Div., 15 Dec. 1942.

13. Hemo for Chief, A-l Div. by Chier, Appointment and Procurement Div., A-l, 23 1Jay 1942, in AAG 210.IY~l, Appointments,; reminiscences of Lt. G. B. Manhart, former instruotor, Ellington Field B-li School,

28 sep, 1944; eFTC History-, 7 Dec. 1941-31 Dee. 1942, vol. III,

p. 367; ~., 1 Jan.-3l Dec. 1943, vol. I, p. lSI.

'1-" "-, ,=~-"

I '~\ .... J


This Pa e Declassified lAW E012958 ------

37

in the vicinity of New York, Boston, and Uashington, D. C. The ~-:est

coast Training Center likewise set. up two boards, which had jurisdict.ion

over the far westero states, with the add1tion of Ohio to compensate

, ~

for the snaller number of schools in the western area.

The program of physical training \'4"aS more general1.y concerned with

t.he procurement of enlisted men than as instructors of officers. Pre-

vious to the outbreak of the war civilians had been used exclul5ively in the physical training program. In the subsequent militarization of

personnel most of these men were enlisted with grades or starr sergeant

or master sergeant and subsequently were sent to 003. Competition with

the Navy for the commissioning of physical training instructors was probablJ more keen than in the case of other instruotors.15 1Uthough civilian instructors in physical training were eventually replaced entirely by military personnel, the use of enlisted men instead of officers

as instructors continued to a greater extent than in other branches of

instruction, particularly- at certain schools such as that at th~ san Antonio Aviation Cadet Center.

gpalifications of Instructors

Whatever may be said regarding the procurement methods and policies,

the ~act remains that the personnel needed to conduct the preflight training programs Vlere obtained. From the standpOint of formal educational

• " "

14. EFTC History, 7 Deo. 1941-1 Jan. 1943, vol. I~ pp. 16-17; 'WiCTe Histor,r, 7 Dec. 1941-31 Dec. 1942, vol. IV, pp. 739-41, 749.

15. CFTO History ~ I Jan.-3l Dec. 1943, vol. VI, p. llSO; Hq. AFFTC, A-1 Div., Daily Diary, 23 Oct. 1942; EFTO History, 7 Dec. 1941- I'Jan. 1943, vol. I, p. 374, Tol. III, p. 1217; interview lIith Maj. A. B. House, A-l Div., AFTRe, by Capt. A. V. House, Jr., 21 Aug. 1943, in AFTRC Historical Sec. fUe~.

,:},:-"..- r+":



-

..

'_

.38

attainment the academic instructors were out.standing in the history- of

American military training programs. A comparative table of the educational status of ground school instruct.ors in the three training centers,

as of July 1943~ is given below=~6 •

Instructors Instructors Instru.ctora
Training Center with Doctoral with Masters' with Baccalau-
Degree Degree reate Degree
Gulf Coast 96 140 12.3.2.
West Coast 41 129 1222.
Southeast 1; 10,3 154.a.
TOTALS 152 .372 399 a Includes a few men without degrees.

~ HOTe reported only 16 instructors l'Iithout college degrees. £ Does not include men wi~hout degrees.

A study of the above data reveals that the men procured by the Gulf Coast

•

Training Center had a considerably higner level of'!ormal education than

those of the other two training cent.ers. This situation seems to have

been due to the follOwing factors, which affected instructor procurenent. (1) The \7est Ooa.st Training Center had fewer schoo1s to draw frOIl than the other two centers. (2) In the case of the Southeast Training Genter

there was proba.bly a greater potent.ial of trained instructors than in ~ other; but in New England, and to a oertain extent in the Middle Atlantic states~ prevailing higher salaries kept most instructors from being attracted to the military training program, the result being that

Southeast Training Genter was obliged to draw most of its personnel from.

16. Information compiled from. the following: T\'lX., CG, CGro to CG~ AFTRO; 12 July 1943, in l'\FTRO A-3 Div. files; TlOC, 00, ~:CTC to CG, SEre and to cc, AFTRC, 10 July 1943, in ~.; Tit!, CG, SETe to CG, AFTRO~ 10 July 1943, in ibid.



AAFH5-4S

39

the southern and southeastern states, w)lere educational levels were

lowest. (3) uot only did the Gulf Coast Center have a large potential

....

of trained men, but the salary levels prevalent in most of the sta.tes of that area. we~e 10\1 enough to favor procurement of instructors by the Amy.

Teachers with the highest academic degrees did not necessarilY prove to be the most. 6Uccessful. in preflight training. Experience, eapecia.l..ly on the secondary level, appeared to be the most important factor. Lack of information precludes an adequate stuqy of the level

of experience of instructors, though some facts are available. At the

Maxwell Field school in J~ 1943 all except 10 of a total of 119 in-

structors were professional teachers, and of 220 men prooured by the Snyder Board only 21 had no previous teaching experience. Of these

snyder Board men only 15 had been elementary teachers, 'While 153 had

been high school teachers, 2$ had been vocational teachers, and 78 had been college or university teachers.l7 From this fragmentary evidence

it can be concluded that the vast majority of the preflight instructors were experienced teachers of hi§h school and college levels.

I

Instructor Training

Although most or the instructors were well qualified in educational methods, genera~ they had little prior knowledge of the subject content they were called upon to teach. This fact frequently resulted in

17. Interview vdth Capt. T. H. Greer bY' capt. ~;m. Habberton, Historical Officer, l8 April 1945; in AFTRO Historical SeC. files; EFTC Histor.Y, 1 Jan.-3l Dec. 1943, vol. I, p. 239; CFTC History, 1 Jan.-3l Dec. 1943, vol. I, pp. 178-79.


,


considerable apprehension on the part. ot instructors ¥ilen they faced. e t.heir .first classes of oadets. In order to meet the problem, practical :il-.service training was established for new instructos at the schools.

Observing in classrooms, individual study of books, outlines, and equipment, in addition to conferences with l1experienced1t preflight

teachers helped to familiarize them. with their new work. \Jrl.1e attention was at first conoentrated on orienting each instructor to one subject

field; I'cross-training" was later required in order to increase ver-

aatility and prevent !tover-specialization and narrowness" in teachers •

•

The principal deficiency in the training at the preflight schools was the lack of contact w.ith !lying and airplanes. Instructors continually

expressed the need for such contact. Some visits to flying schools were

..

ultimately arranged, but in general the preflight teachers remained isolated from aircraft operations.1S

LoCEU training continued, but it was supplemented in the aumm.er or

.

1943 by the work of the Central InstlUctors School at Randolph Field.

Provision was made there for training ground school instructors for the

entire Training Command. Selected civilians 'Who remained on the preflight eta-ffs, as well as officers, were given an eight-vleek course, the main

purposes of mich were to broaden knowledge of the whole ground training program, to standardize content within each subject field, and to improve

, , ...

teaching techniques. i~hlle there was conBiderable critici5lll of the execution of this program, the basic idea. was sound nr.d many instructors

were benefited. After its main purpose had been accmmplished, the course was discCl.'lltinued in January 1944.19

\

lS. EFTC History, 7 Dec. 1941-1 Jan. 1943, vol. I, pp. 363-64; \¥FTC Histor,r, 1 Jan. 19k3-3l Dec. 1943, vol. III, pp. 597-98, 651, 657.

19. Hq. SEre to CG, AFFTC, 17 Oct. 1942, in AFTIW Historical Sec. files; Historical Reporb for 1943, in A-3 files, \IFTC; Hist.ory of

Randolph Field, 1931-l9~) p. 235.

'- ~.



AAFH6-4S

e-' c

'-,... .~J:o.~~"'=>~~

- • ~ '"'t

41

Morale

In general the ground school instructor found it difficult to keep up what Col. K. P. McNaughton called' tiThe willingness and deter.m.ination to do the job at hand with everything one haa-whether it be behind a. desk, instructing, or leading a group to comba.t.t120 In the first place,

I

the remoteness from conflict made it difficult for many of those con-

oerned vd.th the training program to grasp this spirit. Many men were dissatisfied with their assignments and worked under a considerable handicap in trying to adjuet themselves.21. \'Torst. of all was the situa-

tion regarding promotions in respect to preflight school instructors.

Not only had many men been disappointed with the rank they received

upon being cOmmissioned, but failure to be promoted :in many cases after

as much as two ;rears! service in grade was even more discouraging. Dur-

ing 1942 the situation regarding pr~otions for preflight instructors was :fairly- encouraging, but early in 1943 promotions began to dwindle. This was due primarily to the fact that large numbers became eligible at about the same time and that ground school instructors did not. genera.J.ly' share equal recognition with administrative and military training officers.22

. .

20 •

Memo for Gen. Yount by Col. K. P. McNaughton, AC/S, A-3, in AFmC

Historical. Sec. files. '

For these difficulties, see interview with Maj. Louis E. Dreyer, CO, 8S2d Preflight Training S9.., SMOC, by Asst. Historical Officer, Slu\CC, 4 March 1944 (Doc. 10, this stuctr), in ibid. \'JFTO HiBtOry, 1 Jan.-31 Dec. 1943, vol. III, pp. 649-50; EFTa History, 1 Jan.-31 Dec. 1943, vol. I, pp. 240-41.

. ,.

21.

22.



42

Instructional Methods

Classroom techniques were adapted to the nature of' individual

sUbjects. In the recognition courses and code1.visual or aural drill of one type or another was the basic method. In Mathematica, Physics,

and Uaps and Ohart.s, the technique included explanation and practical

exercises. Theory was held to a minimum. and applications were stressed.

The lecture method was aVOided, and student participation in each lesson 2.3

was encouraged.

lla.terials. Textbooks, workbooks, and similar materials were almost nonexistent at first. Requisitions were sometimes so lc~g in being filled that the materials were out of date upon arrival. In one case,

at least, the cour-se itself had been discontinued when the materials

for it arrived. The instructors took the initiative in "Wl'1ting text-

books and in making and procuring training aids. Beginning in 1943, guides and workbooks were centrally prepared and were fumi~ed by the Flying Training Command. The fabrication of teaching aids included such things as the preparation of logarithmic and other reference tables tor the Mathematics course and the building of airplane models and other piaces of equipment. By 1.943 adequate training aids were

condng in from outside sources, and the standardization of courses and instruction limited to freedom of instructors to develop origina1 ideas.24

Testing. Examj nations were at first left up to the individual in-

struetor. One writer sa.ys that under this system "most ot the cadets

23. Interview with Capt. T. H. Greer by Capt. iiill1.. Habberton" Historical Officer, ,15 July 19451 in AFTRO Historical Sec. files.

24. Interview with Maj. Louis E. Dreyer, SAAeO by AS:3t. Historical Of!icer, SAlCG, 41.!arch 1944 (Doc. 10, this 5tudy)" :in ibid.



AAFHS-48

43

made perfect '3rades." J..:aj. !{enry Rcis_'':::l Bara, Director of Training

e a.t 1:mGvell Field, turned to J;\rade curves to establish -'\ more norn.af, situation, directinr, that grades should be made to conforr.t generally

to a graph he drew up. !tThis meant that exc.minations had to be more

difficult and, in practice, more .mnbieuOllS.u Grade levels soon fell

off to an aver·9.ee of about 90.. In many cases, it seems, Ilquizzes and

exar~ations ware used less as a method of teaching than as a device

to obtain the distribution of erades in conformation vlith the .r:Jajor's wishes.n25 This syste.'!J. was abandoned in 1943 and 3. type of era.di1'lB for each course was prescribed in the various instructors' GUides.~6

itt Santa Ana as early as October 1942 a me:norandum ?Ja.S issued requiring

each department to use carefully constructed tests and ruling out truefalse tl:lsts.27

The year 1943 !:law the culmination of the developr:;ent of centrali-

zation in testine. Tne Southeast Training Center had already put into

operation a system of standardized ex?~ations. ?hese were drawn up

by headquarters personnel, issued to the stations, and then returned

to headc,.uarters for machine e;rading. It was recol!Jl"!.ended that this

system be extended to include the a'1tire Flying Training Command and

that control be exercised fram the Central Instructors School at Randolph

rield; later in the ye~r this plan was put into effect. Standardized

25. EFl'C History, 7 Dec. 1941-1 Jan. 1943, vol. I, pp. 370-71.

26. Ibid., 1 Jan.-31 Dec. 1943, vol. I, pp. 2k.7-4f!;. ETTC 1!emo

tro. 50-1-8, 18 Oct. 1943, prescribed seating arrangE;!l1ents and checking of ~bsentees.

27. History of SAAAB, activation-31 Dec. 1942" p. 134. On 11 February 1943 a central corrrrdttee on testing was set up at the Santa Ana pilot school. ~., p. 11,.



tests, based on standardized instructional guides, were drawn up and

e put into use in lJay 1943, but the general reaet.ion to these tests was unfavorable. Permission was given to modify them at Santa Ana in July, and they were soon dropped frOllL use altogether. The deluge of criticisms

against the "Fort 1'lorthtt guides .. workbooks., and examinations is to be

partiallY explained in the tendencies toward autono~ prevalent in each

..

training center and 10'lver dOlin in the stations; but there were also valid criticisms a.gainst the m.aterials themselves. In general the examina.tions were said to be too easy ~ and a stud,y made at Santa Ana in the bombardier-navigator school, with particular reference to the examinations sent out for lmthematics and Physics, concluded Itthat these examinations

were not excellent enough to warrant the administrative difficulties involved in proouring, housing, issuing, and storing them.n2S

Supervision

•

Close supervision and inspection of classroan instruction wa~ not

present men preflight training started. The first several classes at

, .

Kelly Field were taught entirely without classroOlll inspection. Then

the Director of Ground Suhool Training insisted upon the appointment

of inspectors, four be1ng named on a full-time basis. The introduction

of supervision was a necessary incident to the preparation and standardi2lation of course materials for cadets and instructors. Standardization of instruotion required classroom inspection.29 The system first

28. Ibid., pp. 120-21, 194-95; memo for Capt. L. L. Reynolds, Air Insp., SETC by Lt. S. 'if. Garrigues, Asst. Air Insp. (Training), 5 Aug. 1943, in AFrRG A-3 Div. fUes.'

29. Interview with ~j. louis E. Dreyer, SMCC by Asst. Historical Officer, SllACC, 4 }Jarch 1944 (Doe. 10, this study), in AFTRC Historical Sec. 1'11es; CFTO History, 7 Dec. 1941-31 Dec. 1942, vol. III, p. 345.

l-~~r~(- .~'>i"~j i:, ~ --

1 ... _.._I ~ ..... 1 ' ........ ~



MFHS-4S

45

used at the San lmtonio Aviation Cadet Center was rather irregular in e its operation. It soon became the practice to send in reports 'I'r.i.thout the inspections having been made. Then, too, tlspot" checldng and the

deputizing of assistants to do the inspecting came to be the order of

the day. Periodic inspections were next introduced, this systl;lll. being referred to by the instructors as lithe Gestapo't or "the undersea forces."

It lias widely believed that inspectors looked for all sorts of things

other than good teaching. Inspections, however, did have the effect of

standardizing instruction. Eventually supervision developed into an

organization generally referred to as 'tGround Sehool" at the San Antonio

Aviation Cadet Center. '!he staf'£ of this organization assumed such

duties as the preparation of lectures, study outlines, and examina.tions, and the procurement of teaching aids and texts. Toward the close of

the year 1942 the Gu.lt' Coast Training Center began to issue directives concerning instructor training and to make certain rules rega.rding

classroom instruction. Rating of instructors followed as a result of 30

these developments. At the Santa Ana pilot school,. wing supervisors

of instruction were a.ppointed as early as December 1942, and there was

a coordinating supervi~or tor the waole school. The wing supervisors

were later removed, and supervi.sion was concentrated in the subj ect

department heads. Instructors were given fonnal ra.tings, but improvem.ent of teaching, not "inspection,lt was stressed. At the l!ax:we11 Field pUot school a Itdepartment of acade;nic inspection1t was established in

30. Ibid., vol. III, pp. 348-49; interview with Maj. louis E. Dreyer, SMOC, by Asst. Historical. Officer, SMOC, 4 }!arch 1944 (Doc. 10, this study), in AFTRO Historical Sec. files.



46

1942. 'fhe officers of this department visited classes and rated in-

e structors as to "voice, appearance, apportionment of time, speed, force, clarity and knowledge, discipline and interest.1I After the commission-

ing of instruct.ors the military rating syst.em was introduced. Inspections

at the Maxwell Field school seem. to have become lIpicayune enough," as

one writer put it, resulting in such elementar7 practices as putting placards outside classroom. doors before each study" period ttproclaiming

the name of the course, II and listing

the name of the instructor on

the blackboard in front of each class. Even the exact time of passing

out outlines, tests" etc. was carefully scheduled and checked. In

July 1943 the Maxwell Field pilot school abolished the office of teacher

inspection and ret.urned to a system of supervision within the departments.

This achieved better harmony and resulted in closer cooperation with the . di . d 1· t t. 31

an Vl. lie. ane rue or.

A preflight conferenoe held at Fort 1'~brth on 10-ll July 1944

disoussed the idea of supervision as it had evolved up to that time.

The conference took the position that the main objective of supervision should be the improvement of instruction, not the mere rating of individual instructors. uTo accomplish this objective,lI it was held,

"supervision needs to be distinguished from' snoopervision' of the

inspectorial type." It was recommended that regular visits to classes be made and that supervisors remain throughout the entire class periods. It was also recommended that after a class inspection was made, a report

31. EFTa History, 7 Dec. '1941-1 Jan. 1943" vol. I; pp. 367-68; ibid., 1 Jan.-31 Dec. 1943, vol. I, pp. 218-19.



47

should be prepared and di:;icus:;;ed with the instructor observed. Above e all, it was pointed out, inspections should be made by subject rather than by organization. nIt is felt that confining the report to one

training subject will expedite corrective action from the responsible department head.u32

32. Report on Conference on Preflight Training, Hq. AFTRC, Fort ilorth, Texas, 10-11 July 1944, in AFTRC Historical sec, files •

•



AAFHS-~

. '

--_

Chapter IV

Olassification and Uorale

The three types of students trained at preflieht were potential

pilots, bombardiers, and navigators. The £or~er croup rmo far more

n~~erous tr~ the latter two combined. For the greater part of the t~~e, students were classified and separated before starting prefli~ht e school. A.fter :~pril 1944, however, the plan VlaS r.1odified. 1.11 students

remained 'llJ,_Y).cl,\ssifitldu and \'d.th:i.n one group dur5_rv" H.' first five weeks

of instruction; at the end of thn.t period they v/ere assd.gned and 5e;3- reaated, althoueh the curriculum rew~ined the s~~e for all.1

St11denttt classified as pilots were usually n3C'..<;;er" and presented

no geY).eral ~ora1e prob1e~. ~or~le cmon£ bombardier-navicator preflight

trainees tended to be lo'm:;r tl-:tun anon£: rilot trtlinees, especially dur-

inr; the period whon p.\E.n:lr of the."'l wore eli.cinees from. pilot training.

Z1ir::d..nat~d pilot c.:mdid."l,tes present-ed a morale prob.Len; wherever they

~ere entered into bo~bardier-navigator preflight trainine. In the

opinion of one observer, these tr~inees not only were n~Y).duly al~nning

ccdet s in the rl:!lplaceI'1ent center ,II but were llfurlher destroying morale by

1. TO Me..":lO no, 35-17, 14 April 1944.



~ ,

j ,f~--'" ~~"!IIlIi~--r-.-....._

49

causing cadets to come to primary schools apprehensive and nervoua;"

This observer made the suggestion that such trainees should be segregated into a special program to re-establish their morale.2 The suggestion

appears to have represented an intelligent approach to the problem,

though it 118.6 never carried out. The problem \'as finally solved during 1943, after a uniform curriculum was established for aU preflight

schools. It was decided that an eliminee from one phase of aircrew

training, who had completed preflight, would not be required to repeat that phase. Thereafter the preflight schools were no longer troUbled with pilot eliminees in training as bombardiers or naVigators.3

..

Organization

Student organization varied slightly at the different schools. At liwcflell Field the early organization was based on two wings with nine groups of four squadrons each. Cadet officers were appointed f~ the rank: of wing commad.er down through group conmander, lieutenant, sergeant, and corporal. This system seems to have worked well, relieving the commissioned "tactical" officers ot much of the burden and at the

same time affording valuable training to the cadet officers. A similar organization grew up at Santa Ana pilot school and at the San Antonio Aviation Cadet Center~ both of these schools being so large that decentralization was advisable.4 The smaller schools such as the Ellington Field and Santa Ana bombardier-navigator schools had no need for such

2. n;x:, C. C. Moseley, Civilian Oontractor, Cal-Aero Flying School, Ontario, Calif. to C/AS, [12?] Sep. 1942, in AAG 2l..l..F, Cadets.

3. fiFTC Training ltemo No. 26, 24, 1!arch 1943.

4. History of 5AJl.ltB, activation-31 Dec. 1942, p. 165.



50

elaborate organization. At Ellingt.on, for instance# bombardiers and

e navigators were put into separate wings, but the II group" was not used.

At the San Antonio Aviation Cadet Center the men were organized into tlVO wings, the group being the important tactical uni.t. Under the consolidated program of 1944 men were assigned to Viing II for the .first .five weeks and then transferred to ·I"ling I for the remainder ot the prefli~~t training period.

In the beginning the olass system was introduced along w.i.th hazing

and related praotices. lJaj. Gen. Walter .;'eaver was a strong advocate

of the class system. In fact, one of the main reasons for his advocat-

ing the lQ-week program ill 1941. was that a shorter program left no opport.unity for the intr6ciuction of the class system. He said concerning this point:.5

A very real and serious .fault lies in the lack of an upper class to supervise and direct the lower classmen, such as obtains at i;est POint, V.M.I. and other essentiall¥ military colleges. \lithout an upper class it is almost impossible to transmit trac1itions and customs of the Service, and to inculcate that sense of obedience to orders whioh is so e6sential to air discipline.

The class system. was established at Maxwell Field and at the San Mtonio Aviation Cadet, Center. At Maxwe~l Field the worst,l'eatures of hazing

eueh as tlRat Ra.cing" and "Sound Orrn were instituted and encouraged by

the tactical officers. At San Antonio Aviation Cadet Center under the

nine-week program upper classmen and lower classmen were housed in the same barracks, the upper classmen being upstairs_ Ca.det officers were furnished by the upper class, and they llsupervisedll the lower classmen.6

..

5. 1st ind. (OOAO to 03:, SE'l'C, 4 Sap. 1941), Hq. SETC to OGAC, l7 Sep_ 1941, in AFTRC Historioal Sec. files.

6. EFTa History, 7 Dec. 1941-1 Jan. 1943, vol. I, p. 378; eFTO History', 7 Dec. 1941-31 Dec. 1942, vol. III, pp. 350-;1.

~7\r~t~~~"'""_~ ~'~' +'.: _,.

I 1-



51

The class system and hazing Gventually came under severe attack.

Students 'Who entered as veterans from. combat found it Ita bit absurd in some respects tor them to accept discipline"(which at times bordered on hazing) from seventeen and eighteen year olds who had been in the A~ onlY' two or three months.u As early as August 1942 the Gulf Coast Training Center had abolished the class system. in all except prei'light schools and had nominally forbidden hazing of all sorts.7 On 12 December 1942 Liberty Magazine published a letter written by a cadet at the San Antonio Aviation Cadet Center which exposed hazing as then practiced at that school. This resulted in an official investigation which revealed

"

conditions to be essentially those of which the cadet had complained.

The school sought to defend itself by complaining of the shortage of tactical officers which had made it necessary to employ student officers· in m.a.ny- ways. Shortly afterward there followed an invest.igation by the Acting Inspector General of the G>ill Coast Training Center. Maj. Gen.

. '

G. O. Brant tried to shield the San Antonio Aviation Cadet Center some-

what by supporting its plea for more tactieal officers, but the matt.er of hazing had now been brought to public at.tent.ion. Consequently" the

Flying Training Command issued Training Memo 50-0-2, 15 May 194.3, which finally abolished hazing, though the limited class system Vias left

intact. Commanding officers pemitting hazing were to be relieved (IlThose who require hazing to obtain proper discipline are not competent to COIll.lID.Ild,t). 8 The authorities at Maxwell Field contended that the class

7. EFTC History, 1 Jan.-31 Dec. 1943, vol. I, p. 25,; eFTC History, 1 Jan.-31 Dec. 1943, vol. VI, p. 1238.

8. eFTC History, 1 Jan.-31. Dec. 1943, vol. VI, pp. l24J.-50.

(l...-~-:t:"",I~~ t I' l'~, '~i (, r, '



AAFHS-48

52

system was popular with the cadets, and a poll taken there in May 1943

e 'WOuld seem to justify this. The evidence indicates, however, that the cadets as a whole agreed with the opinion of the public that such

practices were not necessary to the winning of the war nor tlere they in keeping wit.h the best. American traditions.9

Honor System

In theory the hest Point ideas of military honor were adopted in

the preflight schools. Honor councils in group or wing were organized,

composed entirely ot cadets. A typical organization, such as that

established at the San Antonio Aviation Cadet Center, consisted of a

wing council composed of cadet commandants vrho were ex-o£1'ioio executive

offiCers 01' the group honor counoils. Group councils were representa-

tive of the squadrons.. The group councils reported conditions, made

suggestions to higher authority, and undertook indoctrination of the lower classmen. The systan does not seem to have worked successfully,

as the councils were genera.l.ly Wlwilling to convict their fellows even

when guilt was clear. Then, too, there was considerable inconsistencY'

in meting out punishments; in many casee leniency was carried to the extreme. The .failure of the honor councils to meet the problems

generally resulted in the adoption of other types of control measures

which, while well intended, nonetheless undermined the honor system. Typical of such measures were those employed at Maxwell Field, where

Major Reis-El Bare ordered that three different tests be used in each

-

9. EFTO Histor,y, 1 Jan.-31 Dec. 1943, vol. I, pp. 254-;5.



~~ I ~ I~"';

d~ Jl'.e .r.: + {, '"t ~~..,- •

53

.

examination and that these Ilbe passed out in such a fashion that no

oadet could profitably examine the paper next to him.nlO

One writer mentions that student officers were the worst offenders

in regard to the breaking of' the honor code. This raised a question

concerning the -M101e basis of honor in the Army. The argument for honor

which was most commonly stressed was tha.t of trying to convince the trainee that his future safety as an airerew member might depend to a large extent upon the honor of the individuals comprising the crew. Almost never' was emphasis put upon the more fundamental point that being honorable is being right and that the whole thing is bound up with one! 5

character. Too often men Who preached honor were not themselves honor-

able. The cadet had ways of discovering these things for himself. It

was all very well for a commanding officer to say, nNo avia.tion cadet who has passed through the Pre-Flight School (Pilot) at Maxwell Field,

Alabama, can be unaware of the standards of honor set up, whether or not he accepts them fully for his own.nll The cadet was made aware of the

honor standards; he -was not properly motiva.ted toward. adopting them.

I11 an at.tempt. to correct this situation a n1.Ullber of officers from

the Flying Tra.ining Oommand were eenb to i':ost Point in 1943 to att.end

a speoial course in honor indoctrination. The recommendations of these

men resulted in changes being made in the honor councils looking toward

10. eFTO History, 7 Dec. 1941-31 Dec. 1942, vol. III, pp. 362-64; ibid., 1 Jan.-31 Dec. 1943, vol. VI, pp. 1251, 12,4-56; EFTa History, 7 Dec. 1941-1 Jan. 1943, vol. I, pp. 370-71.

11. ~., pp, 378-79; 2d indo (Ca.det Landis \v. Smith to CG, AAF, 12 Sep. 1942), Hq. SETC to 00, AAF, 18 Sap. 1942, in AFTRC Historical Sec. files.



54

representation by election rather than by appointment. This resulted

in the issuance of a memorandum which stressed the necessity of honor indoctrination and urged the commands to tighten up,bn eliminations for those who failed to meet the honor code. That the new system worked

hardly any better than the previous one -was to be expected. What finally resulted was that the honor systan. was left nominally in operation, but the schools took whatever measures they deemed necessary

to prevent cheating and other forms of dishonesty. Proctoring of examinations, for example, lias commonly' practiced. 12

Eliminations ~ Holdovers

EljminatiQn6 from prefiight were for numerous causes, The most

import.ant were academic, physical, and disciplinary_ The over-aU

elimination rate for each class fluetuated from 1 to 15 per eent. The

ups and downs in aeacemc f~ure of'ten reflected the demands of fl01l', because the preflight schools had to furnish the quotas required for

d dha .• 13

more a ~ance p sea of tra1n1ng.

Academie eliminations were at first based upon a policy dating

from 2l June 1934, which read as follows: uIn the future students who

are making satisfactory progress in flying training will not be recommended tor elimination unless they have failed in two major subjects (ground sChooJ).n14 Certain difficulties arose as to 'What the term.

Umajor subjectsll included, though it came to be understood to mean

12. CFTC History, 1 Jan.-31 Dec_ 1943, vol. VI, pp. 1253 ff.; £FTC History, 7 Dec. 1941-1. Jan. 1943, vol. I, pp. 370-71.

13. Interview with Capt. T. H. Greer by Capt. \om. Habberton, Historical Officer, 15 July 1945, in AFTRC Historical Sec. files; History of SlJ.AAB, activation-31 Dec. 1942, p. 207,

14. Hq. GaTO to CG, AFFTC, 6 April 1942, in AFTRC 352.15.

I,l('_'" '" - j-

I l \ ~ ~ ( , I



Al\.FHS-48

55

any subject to which 20 or more hours had been allotted in the program,

excepting mathematics and radio code which were always considered to

be major subjects regardless of the amount of instruction given in them.

The m:titude of the cadet toward eliminations came to be a rather in-

different one, because he realized he would not be eliminated except

in the most extreme case, From the beginning, the courses in mathematics and physics gave the most trouble. At Maxwell Field various

measures were taken to cope with this situation. "As a matter of policy

the most promising and qualified instructors were detailed to math-

ematics and physics.n Then, too, the system of outside help and in ..

-e

atruction developed. If a cadet failed, he was given a re-examination; and make-up examinations were given to absentees. In all. the SChools aoml;) form of special help was given. 1, These lenient policies plus the fact that instructors often went out of their way to make tests easy, particularly in the early days when there were no standardized tests, seriously impaired the standards of preflight training. Consequently on 6 April 1942 ~t was recommended by the Gulf Coast Training Center that a new policy on eliminations be adopted. The following standards were approved by the Flying Training Command: 16

'a. Standard of proficiency

(1) (2)

Radio and visual code. The standard of proficiency is established by the program of instruction.

For all other courses a minimum profic~ency standard of 70% is established.

15. EFTa Histor,y, 7 Dec. 1941-1 Jan. 1943, vol. I, pp. 353-54, 369; ~., 1 Jan.-31 Dec. 1943, vol. I, pp. 2.46-47; History ofs\"~, activation-31 Dec. 1942, p. 197.

16. 1st ind. (Eq. GCTO to CG, AFFTC, 6 April 1942), Hq. J.FFTC to CG, GCTC, 14 AprU 1942, in AFTRC 352.15.

I " - )



AAFH8-48

i ,~"---r~i I I' ~ ~

b. El:iminations

...

(1) An7 cadet who, at the time of graduation ot his class from aQY phase of ground training, is deficient in any ground school subject" will be hel.d over to the next class. If still deficient at the end of 4 1/2 additional weeks of instruction, he will be eliminated.

(2) A cadet mo, having once been held over as in (1) above, subsequently bee~es deficient at some other school in aQy subject, will not again be held over to the next class but will, if deficient at the time of advancement or graduation of his class,

be eliminated.

The above standards remained in effect for two Y'ears. EarlY' in 19#, lYith the reduction in demand for pilota, consideration was given

e to the establishment of a more severa policy on Ell i mi nations. It was proposed that any cadet Who failed a subject and who did not pass a comprehensive re-examina.tion in that subject within five days should

be considered to have failed the course and ahould be eliminated. This

proposal was made a matter of policy by the Training Cocmand in April 1944. At the same time the standard ot proficiencY' in aural code was

fixed at six. words per minute receiving and sending and :in visual code at five words per minute receiving and sending. For other academic

courses the minjmum satisfactory grade remained 70 per cent. In all

courses of instruction of seven or more hours' duration, faUure to

•

pass the course or the re-examination was considered cause for elimina-

tion, though academic or faculty boards ~re authorized to consider "extenuating and mitigating circumstancesU in cases Vlherein academic

£aUure could be attributed to illness, emergency fu:r1oughs, or other circumstances "beyond the control of the individual student • .,17

17. TO lleao tio. 50 ... 26-11, 8 ApI"il 1944.



AAFHS-48

57

Academic failures gave rise to the problem of Itholdovers. tt Until

April 1944 students Who were deficient in any ground school subject were

...

}lald over for an additional period of instruction. They were given a. regular schedule of classes, including the subject or subjects which

they had failed. Holdovers were eliminated only if they were unable to

make passdng grades at the end of the extra period. :Ille policy toward

these a.cademic holdovers was not consistent. The Santa. Ana pilot sohool,

for example, at first gave them specia.l help and guidance, but later the holdover program. there was regarded as simply Ita second trial of

proficiency," without ncoachingU or leniency. The nhardlt and l1soft"

policies alternated until retention for academic failure was abandoned

in 1944.

Injthe first six classes at Maxwell Field there were no academic holdovers. This is explained by the fact that the primary ~chools were taking a.11 preflight graduates (indeed during these early classes in

order to meet. quotas for the prjmary schools men were often taken out of preflight before they bad completed the course), while the academic standards at the preflight sohools were also comparatively lower than

was the case later. Then, too, the quality of the trainees was higher during the early classes than was the case several months later.

The year 1942 brought increasingly higher academic standards while at the same time the quality of the individual trainee was decreasing. This situation resulted in considerable nunbers of academic holdovers.

At the same time the number of students held over for reasons other

than academic beg~ to grow. These reasons included hospitalization, emergency furlough, and disciplinary action. In addition, graduates

F hr~_.J~& ~ ~ ~ ... -.,_ l

I '..,...,~ ~~ L_ ~



AAFHS-48

~ ... -'I,' ~ __ .-_n~f __ .~

'~ L~ ~ •

I ........

,

were sometimes retained at preflight sChools because the primary schools

could not absorb them. During 1943 the total number of holdovers ran into the thousands. This situation was due largely to the inability of

the primary schools to absorb the great numbers of graduates being turned out by the preflight schoole. During 1944 the contraction or the pilot program left still larger pools of preflight graduates in spite of reduotions in the number of entering students.lS

Evaluation .2! :!m! TrsininS Program.

By the end of 1944 nearly a third or a million American avia.tion cadets and students had graduated from preflight SChocls.19 ~iha.tever

the shortcomings of the program may have been .. the trainees had at least Learned ma.n.y things which were fundamental both for the technical.

aspects of subsequent aviation instruction and tor their participation as junior officers in a military organization. The two chief aspects

..

of preflignt training--military indoctrination and academic instruction--

were at times opposing forces; the necessity for training men quickly' in the essentials of' flying, however, meant tha.t peacetdme officer standards had to be compromised somewhat. The a.ca::len.ic-versus-military

argument was reflected not only in curricular changes but also in the

attitudes of the two groups of instructors, neither of which, it would

,

seem, was i'ully sJ'lllpathetic to the training offered by the other. Low morale among the academic teachers probably impaired the quality of

is, eFTe HistorY', 1 Jan.-3l Dec. 1943, vol. VI, pp. 1277-78; ibid., 1 Nov.-3l Dec. 1944, vol. IJ PP. 103-05, 109, 111.

19. AFMSO J "[Statistical] History o£ Flying Training, 1 July 1939 through 31 Dec. 1944,n in AFSHO files.

! i' >



AAFH5-4S

59

their i.TJ.struction. The contribution of these civilians, in and out of

e uniform, however, was a notable one and provides a good illustration

ot the way the Army can marshal civilian ~lls rapidly to meet specific

military needs •

..

~ ;,f .2' •

III ! I i,(



60

lJ2H3-4S

G LOS S 1. r:. '[

AF'i'iill 1\.FTfW

A!Jr Preflight 3chool

~ir Adjutant General AJ;,sistant Cnier of L .. ir Staff ~"ir Corps Training, Cent.er IJ.F Flying l'rt'.ining Cozmand

Statistico.l Control1Jlvision, Office of '!anac;ement Control

hAF 'I'r<:.ining Aids Division ;".AJ! Tre.inine Oomnand

:1.;.Ff~ AAG :~G/kAS :~CTC AF'FTC :~7ac

B-lI

Bo:r.ba.rdier-U~,viea tor

C/Le G"l'I'G

Ohief of Air Corps

Central Flying 'frainin,~ Command

Za.stern Fl..vinl3 Tra.ining CO:l.lI.and

FTC

Flying Traininz Coamand

GCTO

Gulf C 09.st 'l'raining Center

J.C.R.

~TUillpinr;, chinning, and run.rline

0;]: .. 0 0U~

Office of Chief of ;.ir Corps Officer Candidate School

p

Filot

SAACC C:':;'fl.1 sid

Santa :~na. !.rrsy l~ir Base

Sa~ !Ultonio Aviation Cudet Center Southeast Trainin~ Center SecTbtary of i.-ar

Tua TO

Trainin~ and Operations Tr~inin~ Cor~wnd

yt.cLro ~j~T li~~ro

,:est Coast 'lrainin:::; Center ,j·ing-~'1rine-Fuscla~e-Tail "estern Fl;"'in.e TrBinine COlllr:i.a.nd

-



61

I;' ,;. t .......

AflPHS-48

_ ' r..~

BIBLIOGRAPHY

OFFICIAL OOCUMlltTS

~ Department

AR 605-10, 27 October 1941, 10 December 1941,. .30 December 1942 AG Letter.:

AG 201.1 (21 Jan. 1942), RB-A, 26 January 1942

AG 320.2 (16 Jan. 1941), M(Ret.) ll-C, 2l February 1941 AG 320.2 (26 Nov. 1943), MR-M-AAF, 4 December 1941

AG 320.2, !lR-M-AAF, [date missing]

AG 320.2, UR-U-AAF" 2 May 1942

AG 320.2, lffi-M-MF" 21 Uay 1942-

AG 320.2, llR-U-AtLF" ,30 Hay 1942

AG 320.2, lIR-M-AJ'..F, .3 June 1942

AG 320.2, lIR-M-AAF, 27 July 1942

AG .320.2, MR-M-AAF, 29 July 1942

AG 320.2, OB-I-AF-N, 22 October 1942 AG 352, MR.-U.-AAF, 27 July 1942

AG .352, UR-M-AAF, 28 July 1942

AG Uemorandum:

AG Memo U 605-19-42, 12 November 1942

!ill!!.! Air Forces Headguart.ers

AAF Regulation 50-14, 16 August 1942, 23 September 1943

~ Flying Training Command

Daily Diary, Headquarters, AAF Flying Training Command, 1942 Memo ,0-1-1, 21 April 194.3

Project Book, J1eadquarters, AAF Flying Training Command

-Yi! Training Command

Daily Diary, Headquarters, MF Training Command, 1943, 19M.

Memoranda: .

35-17" 19 August 1943

3'S-17A, 31 July 1944

I I ~._ ~ • __._.:f-=- • ,PI

, )



62

A1lF Training Command (Contd) 1!enoranda. (Contd):

50-0-2, 29 January 1944- 50-21-2, 27 J'.uguat 1943 50-26-3, 30 November 1943 ;:O-26-11, 6 April 19M.

Project Book, Headquarters, AAF Training Command

~ ~ Coast Training Center

so 64, 28 A.ugust 1940 SO 93, 25 April 1942

Ml ~ ~ Training Center

Training :Memo 4, 25 January 1943

STATISTICAL REPORTS

General and special reports issued by the Statistical Control Section, Headquarte:rs, tillF Training Command.

Statistical eontrol Division, Oftice of Management Control, ~History ot Flying Training, 1 July 1939 Through .31 December 1944.11

OFFICIAL FILES

Central Files, Mil.

•

210.2

2l0.1I 210.11-1 2l0.1K-l 2l0.1K-~ 210.lL 210.1, No.1 210.1, No.2 210.63 210.105C-2 2l.0.105D 2l1E

2llEl

2llF

352.9B 352.11

352 .. 1lH 352.16

Appointments

Appointments

Appointments

Appointm.ents

AppOintments

Appointments

Appointments, Officers

1, ppointm.ents, Officers Preflight Schools Candidates for Appointment Candidates for Appointment Cadet~

Cadets

Cadets

Schoo1s

Courses of Instruction Courses of Instruction Inst.l"llotors

.J "_.7·/~""

II .l~t~~' ~



63

Cent ral IDes, AAF (Contd)

353 353

353, No.1

353, No.1

353, l>lo .. 1 (4) 353, }Io. 1 (42) 353, No.1 (61) 353, l~o. 1 (68) 353E

353.9

353.9B2 353.901

353.902

353.9F

353.9I

353.906

General

Preflight Training General, Programs Pilot Training General

General

General

General

Training, General

Training, Non-Pilot Commissioned Members

of Combat Crews Training, General Training, General Training, General. Training, Miscellaneous

Training in Aviation, Pilot Training Training, General

....

Central ~, ~ Training Command 220 ... 1

352.11, General 352.15

353, Pilot

Historical Section Files, !:AE. Training Command

In preparing this study, an exhaustive search was made of the Historical Section Files, APJP Training Command, which contain such source material as special studies and articles, reports from staff Sections, photostats or certified copies of material in the files

of higher or lower echelons, conference reports, tranacripts of telephone conversations, programs of instruction, and Training llanuale.

A-3 Division~, ME Training Conunand

Copies of directives, training plans and schedules, programs of instruction, memoranda, curricula, conference reports, and conversations deposited in the files of the A-3 Division, Headquarters, AfJP Training Command, have been consulted in the preparation ot this stuczy-.



AAFHS-48

r; ~ ; ~

- ~- ... =-.~ .., ~ ,

~ R~ '.'11 ~ I t .....

....

OFFICIAL HISTORIES

History of MF Preflight School (B-N), Ellington Fie1.d, Texas, 30 September 1941-1 March 1944

Hietory of AAF Preflight School {P}, Santa Ana. Army Air Base, Calif., 1.5 June 1942-1 January 1943

History of Oentral Flying Training Command, 7 December 1941-31 December 1942; 1. Januar:r 1943-31 Deoember 1943; 1 January 1944-30 June 1944;

1 November 1944-.31 December 1944

History of Eastern Flying Training Command, 1. January 1939-7 December 1941; 7 December 1941-1. January 1943; 1 January 1943-31 December 194.3; 1. September 1944-31 October 1.944

History of Ellington Field, Texas, April 1940-1 March 1944

History of llaxwell Field, 1 January 1939-7 December 1941; a December 1941-31 December 1942

History 01' Randolph Field~ 1931-1944

History of SUAB, santa Ana, Calif., activation-31 December 1942;

1 January 1.943-31 December 19.43; 1. January 1944-29 February 1944; 1 March 1944-30 April 1944; 1llay 1944-30 June 1944

History of San Antonio Aviation Cadet Center, San Antonio, Texas, 4 July 1942-1 Harch 1944; 1 May 1944-30 June 1944

History of Selman Field, Monroe, La., 15 June 1942-31 December 1942;

1 January 1943-31 December 1943; 1 January 1944-29 Februar,y 1944 History of \lest Coast Training Center, 7 December 1941-31 Deoember 1942 History of ~iestern Flying Training Command, 1 January 194.3-31 December 1943; 1 September 1944-31 October 1944

INTERVIE::;S !ml RNIDUSCEf~CE'.S

Interviews with:

Maj. rT. U. Beasley, Student Section, A-3 Division" AFTRC Maj. Kenneth B. Chase, S.UCG, San Antonio, Texas

Maj. Louis E. Dreyer, CO, ge2d Preflight Training Squadron, SAAeD Prof. R. Bliss Edgar, AM Preflight School (p), llaxwel1 Field, Ala. Qapt.. D. E. Ellett, Student Section, Aircrew Proflight Unit, AFmC Capt. Lex \1. Fullbright, Director of Physical Training, AflF Preflight

School, Maxwell Field, Ala.

Brig. Gen. Charles R. Glenn, Surgeon, AFTae

llaj. A. B. House, Officers' Section, A-I Division, AFTRC Brig. Gen. tla1t.er F. Kraus, CG" eFTC

Haj. Gen. ~7"alt.er R. ':ieaver (Retired), CG, EFTO

Brig. Gen. W. ~1. Welsh, Deputy Chief of Staff, AFTRC

1st Lt. George E. Wheeler, Physical Training Instru.ctor, PM Pre.flight School (p), Maxwell Field, Ala.

Reminiscences by:

Uaj. C. H. Dabezies, 1 ... 3 Division, AFTRC

1st Lt. W. H. Dusenberry, Historical Section, A-2 Division, lIFTRC 001. O. B. Henderson, A-4 Division, AF~C

capt. A. R. Kooker, Historical Section, A-2 Division, AFTRC

2d Lt. George B. Manhart, former instruotor, B-t,! School, Ellington Field, Texas



69

AAFHS-4S

..

DOCUUENTS

_ , _. ~_w ~=._









65

1lAGA.ZIlJE ARTIOLE

Uaj. Gen. B. K. Yount, "Building the AAF: Part I, Pre-Flight Toughens 'Em," in Aviation, Augusb 194.3

...


..


LIST OF DOCUMENTS

(~ ~ tla. i 2.2PZ. 2! ME. Historioal Studies: !2. li!,!U. ~ Historical Office)

1. AG 320.2 (1 .. 1.6-41) l.! (Ret.) l!~, 21 Feb. 1941.

2. Hq. AFTRC to 00, AM (vd.th appended documentG), 4. Sep. 1943, Original in .353 Preflight, 0 entral Filea, AFTRC.

3. Flow Oharta prepared by Statistical Cont~l Unit, AFmO, 25 Sep. 1944.

4. OCAC to CO, liCACTO (with appended documents), 1 Oct. 1940.

Original in Historical Section Files, AFTRO.

5. OCAC to COIS, mOTe, GCACTC, and i;CACTC (with appended documents), 2 Oct. 1940. Original in Historical section Files, t~C.

6. Program of Instruct.ion [sent to SE,lI.CTC by eOAC, 2 Sep. 1941].

Original in Historical Section Files, AFTRC.

7. Program of Instruction, Air Corps Replacement Training Center (Aircrew), Pilot Trainees, Hq. A.hFTG, 15 l!arch 1942. Original in Historical Section Files, AFTRO.

8. CO, MFPS (p), l.1axwell Fld., Ala.., to OG, SFAAFTC, 26 Sep. 1942.

Original in Historical Section Files, AFTRC.

9. TO Uemo 50-23-1, 23 May 1944.

10. Interview with Maj .. Louis E. Dreyer, CO~ 882d Pref1.ight Training Squadron, SMOC, bY' Asst. Historic.al Officer, SliCe. Original. in Historical Section Files, AFTRC.

66

tn1 ~.., _ ". ,~. -= I

I, VI __.\~ ) ~I 'I



-_ .. __ !,

IUD"[X

t

..

::;,.;~rc ~~e!l.l.o :0. 50-1~, 43 en 26) "":11ctt, Lt. JJ • ..;., 13

"";J.linjton Field_, J:'(;;KaS, 4-5,

2&, 49-50 ...:a~"'Aand , 1.3, 19

1";;P Heedquarber-a, 4

/'; .... ;p Fr<:f1ieht School, S:.: ... CC -' 6 ;:~ Reg. 50-10, 26

l;.'.F b::r;. 50-14, 43

Advanced Prefli~ht sections, 5

F

B

FIJ'i.nr; 'i'rainine Cor.ld., 22, 42-43, 51, 5:;', 55-55

CG, 4

1; J'C !..!.e..1iO .:0. 1, 13 (n 12) :F1'C 1!f"".0 iTo* 5Cl-O-2, 51

:;.L~ .,.'~O ~:o. 50-1-1, 13 (n 13) ror~ l:orth, 13, 33, 44, 46

Bl[:.clq;ool, 1'.'ls1and, 19 BostO.l, 37

Brant, ll:l.j. ~n. G. G., 51 BritiGh plane:;;, lS. ~ also

Rn&:land.

"EurI'.la. Ro~d, II 25

G

G

Canado., 1-1

C~ntral Instructoro 3chool, 20,

40, 43

Chief of l~ir Corps, 2, ?, 9 Civil 5ervic~, 30

Cla;:;s 41-"::', 26

G ..... 'll:rul Frl3fUt:ht sections, 5 !1G~otap~, thc.,11 45

:tround Cohoo1, SUi rl."'ltonio, 45 Gro~~d ~chool ~r:inin:, Dir. of,

M

Guenther, Lt. Col. L. ;~., 13 G..uf Coa.st ':i:'rain:i.n[', Center, 4, 10, 25-26, 35, 3e-39, 45, 51, 55

j.ctin;2' 1..'1'3< b:ctor Geilerc.l, 51

D

D-4 co~~utcr, 16 Dawson, Lt. r, P., 13

J

!lJ. .J. .:~. II tests (ju.~r'ln.::, chinning, and run~~), ~6

•

8th ~'.ir iorco, 13 'ill-6_o CCmpu.t0r, 14-15 3-i'lar, 22

67



L

, (

LC::G.u~htOll, .:.rir. G0~1. r. P., 23, 4l.

.!-.'...Y..,'cll fie.i.d~ :.la., 3-6.1 9-10, 12, 21~-26, 31, 34, 39, 43, 45-46, Lilt-53, 55, 57

Dir. of ~ruinln~, ~3

__ ir...cli .2-;oca, E'la., 35 :~lddlc :.t1antic str...t.!;:;.., 38 lloJ:iett Field, c.asr., ')

:I.:..vy, the., 34, 36-37 !;ew ..A['lfffi·j, 3£

:ku York, 37

o

Offic~r C~ndid~te School, 3l,-35, 37

Ohio, 37

Ohio ~tate Univcroity, 19

p

Po.cif10 the:lters, 26

p

..

fi.:l.ndolph I<'l.t>ld, 10, 20, 2], 2d,

40, 43

U.d.at ao.cine," ,0

Eeis-Sl ~:::.r.~, l.~ej. He{lry, 43, 52 lLenshuu ::;.r5te.'r!, 19-:23

Jon L ... atonia :.'<lio.tio:l C:tdt;;t Cl;:r~tcr (Z,~.CC), ')-6, 26, 32, 37, 45, 49-52

63

Santa Ana, C~lif., ')

$an.tSt l~n:l :>.rr';Y' l.lr 2as€, 3-6, 14, 17, 2U, 22, 25-26, 32, 43-45, 49, 57

~chbol of General Reconnaissance,

:!o. 3, 19

SeJ.ective :er"lice i.ot, 33 S ~lrr£l.,"'l 1> iald, j la., 4

S:rly-1er, It. Col. :.. ". (Board), 35-Jb , 39 n .Jc.tmd 0 ff ,11 5Cl

Southeast 'Iraining Ce-:ltor, 4, 7, 31+, 36, 3$, 43

T

rc ~el1o ::0. 50 ... 21-2, 25 (n 37), 27 TC :':'80.0 Co. 50-21-7, 27

1'w..as, 36

Tra:ini.n,:, l.C/ .. ~, IP;

1rai~in~ Co~and, Ho., 5, 1e-l9, 40, 44, 56

Ghiof of Scaff', 23

v

Virg,inia Li1itDrY- Institute, 50

,jur Dept., 33.f 35 ,.ashinEton, D. c., '37

"eavet', l:aj. Ge'l. ". n., 2, 9,

11-12, 25, 30, ,0 ·,:ee..i.S plotters, 16 .::.....~·r systen, 19

.:cst COfl.3t Trainin2' Center, 4,

19, 20, 37-3~

,;est Point, 23, 50, 52-53 ,.i.o.r: I, 50

. in.q II, 50 I';orld "s.r I, 1

y

Yount, 1.:.a.j. Gen. D. I:., 4













t ~ ro M ""~ ~:;:1U'\~ CY,'tR~tR UJ ~'$~§
~ I~ 0'1....0 ~ ~~w..
<.\I Lr\ 'W l!\0\~~ l'-~~s I'I"\O\~
E-t
tI)
~
~I @~$';l ~::I8~ fo's f~St S. ~&'~~ e-so r-<"o
tI)
~(I) ~~ ~~H~
""'~ ~~~&' ~~rR~ ~~~~ ~ RlOJU'\ ~@
ot3 1'C"\N'\f'C\;::t OJ
~~
Ii::
~
~ [J)
~ ~i~$ ~~*~ ~~~ e- ~N"'I'-O'-O o",QU\~
[J) ~ I'I"t ~~~
t; ~ ~F!ct.
I~ r-i~.-ItG' 1:'-- Sf'f'I.-l ~~}R~ CI.INLr\ O\~
0 1'1"\ "".-I
.... (IJ ~tt: ~~~~ _r:g~~~ ~~jf:~
~a .$.%~Sf. ~~!2
. •
• x ~
• • • II)
ell «I ~ E-t • 1<-1
~ .. ~ . . ~~~ •
q~~~ Hft.t <I) .. ~ .. fj.j
.. ~ :a !;it .. ~ ~!;} t; ~ .. ~:g g ~~~
~ .. ~~ ~ .. o~ :=I .. 0 ~ ...:I
Ii! ~o
Q) 0 E-I Q 0 IE-! ¢I 0 E-t Q) E-t S°E-c
~~i is "8 cd" f&1'S w" iQ §! .. ..
g a:I §!
r-I~ ~~1i ~~~ ~ ::tfo to
r.:l e ~ ~ r,1 E-t I J~~ $la$
~r~~ .I"i~
t:; !! ~!! ~ r:q~ ::iia
...:I Fll1l ~
Ii! 0
C!J IX!
-13-8::.. THIS PAGE Declassified lAW E012958


e ~ .g~~~ t ;l~~$ U'\O\'(R0 ~~~~~ ~ N'\t.n, .... 0\
f-I:
I~ S!.~()r-I *~~~
.~ CIJ~~~ W;!( K'\ '-OOC\l~ r-tr-lN'\U\~ ~
e K'\ r-t .... '""'
0
~ .
f3
!'-i
t~ (\.l C\..' I.!"I 0" 0 --O":::-rlU"\ t-IOIi"\O Ot<'\OI'nl'- ..:!' t<\o~ H".
~!;I • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . . . .. .. • • • •
r-t..::t..::tf'('\ "' .::tr-tN"'lC\l N'\ C\I -.0 t<'\ r-I c- r-t r-I r-I OJ ..::t~ \0 r:-...
m~
, rI) ~
F,;!
41 &i~ LI'\~ 1't'\'W ! 0\0\r-~ ~~~~ ~~~te.~ it ~~~j
I~ OJ ~$ I'<'>OJC\I
.;-1 C\lC\I U\ C\I W
U)
~
~I
til
ed~ (I) g~~~ 0 ~bir-St *&W\f}J t-{\JK)t-0\ '00 ~6t$$
~~ .-I 00 L"- 0 -.0 C\l ~
@ N'\ a '(,0 ~O~~ r-l5'&ib;: ~ ~ t-O'l'!() ~"«:Ir-
to C\I K\ K'\...o ~ -o r-I r- r- C\I
~o ~o K\ r-I rl 1<'\
>t
fjtzl
~
~ (f)
~ ~r-r-O\ ~ O\$O'>~ Sl~bS!. OI'C\'-O~~ 'CO 1r\1'<'\0'\t-
, r~ ~~~~ ~o~ 1£ ~..tO" '.1'\ '1'.0 ~~~a •
~~ tc\ r-I t<\ K'\ liO ~ ~
Ul (\J K'\ t-~(\J~ (\Jr-It<'\l.C\~
N'I K'\ C\I
r-i
~
}j5~ ~S$2 j
~~ :g:iF~~ ~~~.2t ~~~~ ~:l1~~ -T
'CI
II)
i • • ~ ~
• ~ ~ • ~ • ~
E-t ro ~ ..
~ .. • • • • ~j~~
~fH ~ ~"~:-i! :~ .. ~~ ~ <H~ ..c:
.. ~;q~ ;i 'd.e:~ ~ "'~ ~ tJ 0
~ .. ~~ f:a .. Q) 111 :z: j
;:l~OI5 ~l'i!0~ ~ "'O~
Q) 0 ~ m r-I 0 ~ Il) 0
i£l-s ;E-I ~ Q) .. &I d) .. 8 f8 Q) -a .. E-I ~ 1:1 ... e-t fIl
~tln! ~~~ ~i~~ ~~! 0)
" ~~~ E-f ~ r~.Il E-I m .:1
I j ~m ~ (,)
J~2 ~ ai J ~ r~ r~ ~ J~i ~
'la a (11 a ~
til 0) til ~ r..1J !4 IZlUl ~
1 :l.~
THIS PAGE Declassified lAW E012958 This Page Declassified lAW E012958
~ e e
IS~ .:8-~I'C"\.-fU'\t-NO\ ~ ; ~ ~ '-0 ~ 1.1'\ ~ Q.I
e 'f>ON"\'60~-.o~t-
~o rotr-t l\J <.\I
; fi
e ~t!jE-t
.. .. .. ..
~ e ~ ~
Co .. I~ .. Ii: til
0 ~,j.:$."$:§J.2JU'\t- 0
§ ~ 3 U'\ -..0 !l\ C\J
s ~ ~ ~
0
~ ~~ ~ EI EI ~ ~
~ Z 12l
~ ~~ ~ a a
m OJ 0\ OJ I.t\-.o '00
im~ • • • • • • •
~9 \OOJlf\OJ....::ti3 -o
B OfoC'\M~ ..... C\I(\JO 0 0
II 0 0
e to
ffi Cfl :$;:3::&:ri~~r:-t- ;:S:
~ ~~ l\J
OJ :a
~ 0 "'l'oO~~~-;:rt"-o ~ N'\ ~ 3 ~ ~
e ~ ~ tIJ
Ii1 H ~i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ tj
~ i !3 ~ i ~ 81
~ E-I
~ (l.i "'"60~~~;lr:-
0 ..... Ul
! o~U)
~&1§
m~ ~~$~.$~oo .s C\I
E~~
K\ 1<\
fa ..:t..:t~~~~:g:::g: s ~ :¥ ~ :3
~ ~~~8~!~~ l:lO ~ .0 ti ~
l:) ~ &
~~ 'OliOliO.-ft<'\U\t'-o'60 ....::t ~ 1.1'\ ~ U'\
(\I(\IC\I
t<'\ 1'(\ &t &3 s ~
~~..::t~~~~ ::g: I I ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~§ ~g.~ i) a. () ()
~ i:ml'":)l'":)t/lo::::; ~ Q) 0 ~
-< ~ 5 i
~~ c:a~~~,..jN"\U'\ Ii! ::l ...::t ...:t
jI:j :i:i
• ~ ~ ~ ~ !a ~
CJ
~ ~I 1"''l'''"'''~'' ~ , ~ " t1 ~ ~ 0-. ~ ~
~ o :1:!~:!~:!:i:k ~ ! !1; !
Pot $ m 4 m
Cd~
~ e It
~ f!l~r4 oS~~~~~~&~~~~O~~~~~~~~~~~
e §§~
N ~ rl~~N ~ ~~~ ~~W~ ~~~~
~ ~~~
e
.. fJ
... ~
Co!
Is O~~oo~NNruNOONNruNNn~~~gg~~~
~ N nNru~~~~~~~~~~~~
.. " ~ ~~
t:-t
~~ ....t t-O\t<'\ .-to-.U\"«I~U'\~~Il'\.-4.:t...::tI"'lt'-~
~E1 • ~ "" . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Os 0\- I<\::I'-!l t-"'~~Lt\I.t\...tL!\t'-r(\Lt\M..::t~t-
~r4
~
I~ OOOONONt-40~"'r(\U'\r(\r(\"'~L!\N~...t~U'\~
e rll ~a
~ m
§} ~~ OO~O~L!\~o\'~N~~~t-U'\Lt\N""t-~~""~Lt\~
E-t ~~M~ ~1.t\1.t\L!\U\L!\I.t\Lt\I.t\U'\U'\U'\L!\~ ~t'-t'-t-~
CI)
~ 0
- &-I CI) MM ~ru(\J ~RI's}~::lO\m-;:rt{j'~~~::l~
o~3
a tx:- .. == 0
0
• ~
a)
• .. tr.:I riM (\J(\JC\J ~&'~~ S O\@ ~ ~m ~~~
IJ ~a~
~~ @@@@@~~~~~~$~~~S~~~~gS&$~
~§~
~tJ
e. s~~s ~~
~n ~~s~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
:;:J e 1:: § § to Pt+' g 0 Ia..a ~ ~ § ~ ~ ~ u ~.o ~ 1-1 ~
f g)~ i~~~~~8~~~~~ii~~~8~!~~~~~
i:i W~M~~~O~~~~o~mowo"'~L!\t-~~~~
~ru NC\JN ru~ (\J~(\J~ M(\I
~ ~ ~~~
~ S2~SS S~S%~~~~~~4~~~~~~~~
m ~.o~~~~tDPt+'to~..a~h~~~~+'tu;..a~
~~ ~~ ~~~~~8~~~~~~~~~~8~~~~
~L!\~"'WOt-@~SL!\~W"I<\ONO"'~~t-o\o~
(\J ruM'" ruNru 1<\ ~ rI
~ ~ ~I
~ ~'~1'~~~'1'~~~1'~~~~~'Hl~
~ s~s~~~~~~~~~1~~~~~~~~~~~~
0:0:;
£-01:- \
.~ e
I I~tl 0 ~ ~~~ i ~re
e ~= 1'('\
~
e
.. .. ..
~ ~ B § ~
n ~ I'I'\I:'-C\J ~ ~~
~ fg I'I'\lO W
E-t E'1
~
~~ ~ t- «v-o
BSl • • • •
~~ ~ U\ 1'<'\ I!'\
I~ ...::t (\Joo 1.J"\'60
e ~~
U) ,
~~ tit ~~&I ~;l
1""'0
0
- E; (J) .:t (\f ""'..:t
~i~ CIJ &.Rt
~ 0 OOJiI
il.i 001
~§~ 11\
~~o
i~ ~ ~"8(IJ Kf~
~§~ rl
~~
B ~ ~ :3::$:$ ~;g
~ ~~~ G)
~ ~ ~~
~m ~ ; RI~~ '£..:t
i Z I ~;:g::& m 3~
"( ffl ~ ~~~ ~i
~~ s a
~ 2f~ -;:t j;Q ~C\I;:t ~ ~~
, ~ ~ !ld
0 ~I 0
~ tr ~ HI'o,)M ~
'. l'
~ .s ~ A~:! ~ .'g.!g
~tJr
e e
e I Ih ~&~~~~~~omo~~~~~~M~~~~~~~~~~~~
~2 ~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ o~~~~ro~ ¢~
e ~ ~~$~M ~@~ID~~~%S~~~*~~~~~ro&
..
~ ! a
~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~W~~M~~~O~M~~M~
~~ ~ ~ ~ OO~ ~ m ~~ ~OOo w
I· ~~ $~ ~~~~~~~re~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~
~~ ~~~O~~~~~~~~W~~~~~~O~4~~O~M~~~
U . . . . . . . .. . . " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
~M~ ~~~~~Mru ru ~MMW~ru~MWMMru~M
~
e I~ ~~@~~~~~s~~§~~@~~~@~~~&~~~~~~~
~
~ !'Jl
~ Frl~ ~n~~~~~&~~$~~~~@M~~~~~~~~J~~~M
E-t ~Q $@~~~~~~~~~ ~~n~~Q~~So~~ru ~~~
Ul ~ W WW~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ru ~
e ~ 0
E-l UJ oMru~~~~~Mru~~~~m~~M~o~~~~
~ ~~~ rlWW ~ ~ ~S~~S~~~~~~~~~M~
•
til :::.-
• m
~ 'I) o~~o~~~~Mru~~~~~~mM~o~~m
~r.t.I Mwm~~ ~ ~~~~S~~~~~b~~~~
o ::i
~filQ t<\ (.\J
r.t.I
~~
~ mn~~~~~~~~~~~~~~m3t<\~~~~~gt<\os~~
~~~ $@~~M~ ~~ w~~m~~~ ~~s~~~ ~~~~~
~rlW~~~t<\~ ~ ~~m~~nru~
~ QSS~~~~~S~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3~
8~!~~~~~J~18~!~&~~J~~H8~~~~I~~
:3
~~ ~~w~@~~~o~~O~~O~M~~WOOM~~~ru~~~
~o ~~ ru ~ ~NN~ ~~ ~ M~
Sf ~~~
3SSS~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~4~4~~~~~~3
... ~~~c~g~~~~~~~~te~~~~§~~~~gu~~~
s d
~8~!~~~ ~~~~~8~g& ~ ~~~~8~~~~~
Ii:: n4@~~~~~M~~~@~IDreM~~~M~~n~~~~~~
, ~
~ ~I A~~~~~~~1~o~oo~O=H~~1~~AOO~~~H~~
m ~ ~~~~ii~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3~~~~
£-1:1-3 -
I~" lit e
- I=;j~ ~o~~~~~~~~N$40~~$~~~~O~~~~~~ ]
-~~ @~~ ~~~!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ii~~
ei ~
II ~
...
0" ~ru~~o~~~wN~m~~~~~~~&~~ru~~~~~ i
~ ~l~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~
~~~g@@~*~~~~~~~~~ §~$SS~~ru~~ i
~ ~~ ()
~
~ e ~
ctl co
E-l< ~n~~~~~~WW~~~~~~~~O~~~~~~~~O
t;1~ • • • • .4- • .. • • • . ,. • .. · • • • • • • • • • ... • • ~
E~ 4~ rlrlru nruN~Nru~ru~run~~~~W~~ i
CD •
~ ~I
~~
f ~~4~~~~s~re~~~~~a~~~~~~~~~~~@
~ (l)e)
~~
e ~ o ¢I
~t
~ til ~&i~~~~~~~S~~~~$~j~~~~~~~~~~ ~~
00
~~ G>
§ ~rl ~~@~~~~~~~~3S$ ~~~ ~ *~ ~!
E-I as+!
Cf.I e
0 Z!l
e k:l E-i 00 ~~~~~O~~~~N~~~~~~~~~~NOO~
~ ~~3 ~w~ ~o ~~ru~~ ~ ~~o ~~~m Q)~
M ruNru~~~ ~~~~Wn@@ru~@ ro ve
:=,.::;0 ~-o
•
CI) ~ ~~
~( Ili ~~~~~o~~~~ru~~~o~Mo~m~~~o
til ~~rl ~~ 03S~ruo ~$O~n~~~M~ o 0
oel~ rl ruru~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~M s:l 0
0
~filo Oed
'tfq,
'" Jot
Ul j!<Il
!~ ~~~~~m~~~~~~*~~~§~jID$j~~$~$~ ~~
s~
~~~ ruM ~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~ ruru 21
s~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3~~~~ 01
~ !!
II) Ql 11) po.
~~~~~~~3l8~!~&~~~~~!8~M~~~~~ e O'l
d 8,!!!
W~@~~MO~W~O~~~O~~~OOM~~~W~~~ OU
nn NN ~ ~~~"~ ru~~ M~ ~~
~s~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1~~ l1i •
II)
ill ~~~~~~~~~i~8~~~t~!~~~~8~~~~~ 0] e
~ ~~
..,;j
'ii! @~~~~~Mre~~~~~~~~~~~~~rl~~~~~~ -u..f:t
,f!l A 'Il ~~
I~ ~I ••
~'~H~~1~lA~~1~H~~1~~~~~1~H~~ ~
~ • 1'" I , I ~'~'3~~~~~ ~~~~
oz ~~~~~~4~4~~~4~~~~ ~
,
-=2-04-
A e e
e~ I~~ ~~~~O~M~~~~~O~M~~~~~O~~
~~g~ ~~ ~~O~§O~ O~~~
~ ~~ ~ ~W ~~N~~~~~ ~~~~~$~~~
-~
~ ~ I~
i g~~~~~~~~~~~3~j~~&~~~~ID
Cf.) ~~ ~~ru ID~~~ ~ ~ ~~ruru@N
~I ~N~~~~~ruW~~~~4~O~~~40~W
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
m~ rl~rlrunN4rurl~~N~~~~4~4~4~
~ ~~~~~~~~m~~a§~~~~~~~~~~
1;1
e ~
I ==1%1
~B ~~$~~~~~~~~~~~rl~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g ~$~m~~~
~
..
e; 0 ~~~~~~$~~~~~~&~~~~~~~~~
E-t (f.l
R~~ ~~N Mru~ ~~~~ru ~W~M~ ru~ru
rlrlr-l
lXI .... o
•
ell m
• o*ru~~~~~~~~~~~&~~~~~~~~
b P-ttt)
OeJCIl ~ru ~ru~ ~~~m~ ~~~~~rlru~
~~~
e II ~~~~~i~~~~~~~~~~@~~~~~~
m~&i rl~!~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~ @
I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~$~$~3~~~
~§~~~~ua~~~~§~M~SOs~~~~
~~ ~~~~88a~ffl~~~~~~8~~~~ ~~
~~~~rl~~~~~~@~~~rl~~~~~~~
~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
G)CI)~ CDI>t
~ ~i~~ !8~~~~~~i~~~8~~~!~
Ii: ts~ ~rlrl~~~rlruo~~~~w~On~~~~~~
W ww~ ~ rlW ~ M
,~ 001 ~1l~~'lq'11~1'~"'~'1'~
m ~ ~~4~~~~~~4~~~~~~~~~~ ~~
-2-9-5- ~/
- ~\
~ e e
I§~
e ~; ~~~~~~~o~~mm~~re~J~&~~O~~~
~o ~~~~~~~~ru~~~~~~~ ~~~**M~~
e 08
.. ~O~ Q
lil
l2;!gj I~ $~~~m~~~~~~~~~*~~S~~~$~~~
do
~~ ~~
am
~
~~ t- ....:;tllO ~nO~OllOW~~~~~~MOO~MO~
;,~ • • • .......... ( ..........
l\J N"\rl ~~ru~~~~~rurl~~rlrl~ru~m~4
m
; ~o~~o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ru~~~
- ~~
~~
~ til ~rl~~~~~~rlru~owo~~oo~m~~~3t-
~ {'J)
fJj ~@~furu~@~S~~~~~~ ~~~@ ~$~~
;;Z;O
<Ii u.J
e ~ 0 ~~ru~~~~~~%~~~~~~w~~~ru~~ru~
E-t CIl
~ ~i~ rl ~ ~ow~~~~~ ~w ~~
rl """rot rl
•
OJ ~
• o~~ru~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~M~~~~~
1:)'
U) riM ~rl ~~w ~ ~~W~t-~
oe'J~
~&1o
!"Jl
I~ ~~~$OOm~~~~~~4~~rl~~O~O~OO
18~ ~rl ~~~N~~~~ ~~~~~~~@~~~~~
q)~ •
~
~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
W~~ mo~ '2
~ Mh§§~~~~~~3u~ffi~~M~~§g~~~~ t;
~~~~~~:~88~!~~~_~~~~~~~~~
~~ 15
I~ t!J ~~~~~t-m~~~~~ru~~~~@~ru~~ru~~ ~
i ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ til
II)
ffi oS
~~M~§§~M~~~~~Oa@~~~~~~§~ I:)
~~ ~~~~~~~~~88~!~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~
@ ~4~~~~~~~~~~~~~m~~M~~~g~ ~
, ~ ~I ~~~~~~~~ o~~~~ro~o :g
Ii1 i. 1111111~~'~~~~~7~.7M77~ nI
Q)
~, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1~~~ ~
'o~ ~
~"6- L
E-t
-

~ e
~
< ~~~
e e ;St~:§r!~~jf~~~~
~~o ~ruU'l~f(',tt\ (\J(\J'O
;~~ ::L ..... rl ~ r1 r-I M ~~~r-i
e C;EH
" El o~ fA
~~ I~ ~~~~~~~~~~~_g~
, ~
.. ~~
~~
~
~~ ruCJ'.l'-It\r1r-1....:tt\J..:;to c.\!t\:
• • • • • • • • • • • •
,U K\{\jrl\ru...:::l'-OIt\...:::I't<\K\ .,:tt<\
~ ~~~~~~!?i2!Q~o~g
U
e
vo ' ri:I
~ f:;!
CIl
~ [I') "§~~@~te.0o~~::l2.C\J
,~~ r<'I 1.t\1!'\1!'\~.:s...:t...:::t~
CIl
[El 0 JR:3IR~!9!f~~~~°-at~
e Eo! (fl
~ ~~~
::c;~o
•
(fl t
•
j::) m~:3'rR[tt,~!9~~~::I°it
CIl
o~~
~ai@
i~ 0\ ~ I.t\ 'rR N'HO IJ'\!S tc"I M o..;t 'IlO
~ § f<1 ~~$U'\lRfn~ :g!;9 ~~
fd~
III
Q ~~~~~~:3~~:S:;~~ J
~
88~~~~~~~~~!i ..
::;) 0
j~~ ~
ru :n~...:::t t{j' ~ U"I ce ~~pO ~ ~ ~
~
~
i ~I ~~~~~~~~:$:$:g:::i:$ J
1;:lI)~~4>+lSOO§.o.o,.QJ.I
~~~88z~~~~~i£~ ~
~ ~~ {\JsJ~C\J~~..:tl{f~l'-l'-re~ (l)
~
"- ~
0
~ ~I ~~~"i!~ ~ +l
(I (I n 1'<'\ .... 1" 1.('\ Lr\ t- ~
m, ~~~~~:$~~~~:!~:!
O~ if!
-2W=- =
j_~
e e
~
e i m~~ &~~~~~Ei~m*l~~~Jmi~~i~~
-~~
S 0
e ~~ :a;OE-l
• ~~ G1
rs~ II ~~~~~~~~~g~~~~~s~~~~~~~
~5
I~C!J.
~~ ~~
c-I eo '" lS\ ~ 0, ~ ...;J ...:t ..;t 1<"\ c-I CIJ ..;:::j 'W-.o..::t(\J...;tO\ot.C\
rl • c-.i t'.L-i w • ~ ~..d ~ ::i ..:t ~ .........
~~ I"'ir-l r-IC\J
0'
,~
~ ~~~~N~r-I~~~~~r-I~044~~~~W~
,n
e
U)
~ U) ~~~~~~~o~o~~~~~~~~~d~~~
§ ~~ ~~~~~S~~S~~~ ~~-.o ~~~~
E-I J~O
rf.l
e r:il 0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g~~~~~
C-f E-t Cfl
~ ~~j
t:II.40
•
Cf.l ~
~
l=l ~~~W~~~~Or-l~~~~~~~~~~~Q...:t
'Il MC\J ~~~ ~ r-I~~ ~ ~
~~
00
"P:t,*o
U)
~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~r-IM~~
r",l
~~~ rur-l~r-Ir-I~~~S r-I ru ~~~~~~3
~ cr.HiI
•
N".\ G>
~~~ 4 ~N".\~ 2
I ~~ ~~~~~~%~~~~~~~~~4~
~~§§~~w~~~s~a~~E~~~§§~~ ~
.Ql
<~~~~<~~88~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~
~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~fu~~~@~C\J~~~ b
~ I c;
0 ~~S~~~~~~~S~~~~~~~~~~~ j;:I
H (fJ
~ III
Q)Wp. ;!I
t!:I ~g ~~~~~~~~l~88~~~~f~!~i~
§ I;)
.&
.... I~~ ~~~~~~~~~~s~~~~re~~r-I~~~
~ ~
, ~I * ~ ~~~ 0 ~ ~~w
~ :g
117~1771l~~~i~~~717q7nn ro
~ II)
oz ~~~~~~~~4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
] --208- t
• f
E-t
e e
a~ ~~~~~~t)~~&~il~~
e ~ I~~
~i ~2 O\~~r-I::t~~~~~~ ~~
e
~ mer II
I:j I'C"\ 'at t'--!.t\ LC\ tr\ -o M ..... ..;t 0\-3 0\ ~ t--
f§£§ o OO$OIl'\-.oON'\r-i ..... $'
~ N"Il\Jt<\1'C\ tnlt\!.t\It\tc\tc\U"\
.. ~~
~~ J 0
~~ ~
t--- e- N 0\ I'C\ lO (\I CI.t -.0 1.("," t-'ro
~:a • • • • • • • • • • • • •
t,)~ rI (\J Nt-I .... r-l rlr-I
I ~~
a C\I Lr\ 0 t-...:t ~ s: t-'-O OJ I.t\ -.0 0 U\ I.t\
f~
e ~
~
U) I r.:I
~ Ul ~8 S~ .§~~::8 S'~~g.~~~
~ 8~ H"I K'\ K"\ It\ I.t'Hr, ~ N'\ I'C'I U'\ t"'-
J~o
" U)
e ~ 0 [,'&''£~~~£:\~~8l~'GOo~@
~ Ul
~ o~~
~.;:!i
• t:q ..... o
U) ~
•
l:? C1l &'~m~~~s~~~@~~o~
o~~
~~o
~@ ~~-acl:§.~'lR~.g!:;~$"°:.i~
~
~~I t<'\1'C\ LnLt\LC\U\""N'\U'\ l'-
•
~ ~!s~~~~~zjf~:i~z:g:$ ~
bIlP..p.p SO 0 5,Q,Q,..,.. 1-4,.. ~ E-t
~Jj88:;.:~~'":)&~~~~~ "'
~~ 0
@;::lC\J~~...:ti&Sllt\,£~'OO'60Ri~ S
I a c!1 ~
s rn t<'\
H ~-:t'!&~~~~~~~~Z:§f3:iJ s
~ ~~
'§ ~ tID tID p.ofo} ~ t () Co) ; .0 .c.c ~ C/l
S ~~~~~88z~~~~~&" ~
~ ~~ I~I
~ ~~{\J@~l'I~~4t&;::;t-L-reg m
, ~ ~
u
~ 191 ~O~gjK'\t1U\ l of:>
r-I (',Ir:t t(\-U'\ t"- Il)
~ ~CIj Il ~:$}:i-r.~~}:k f.t
.:.:t~~~..::t~4' :g i "
1 /'
--2-09-
' 1

e e

..

,

'to 'W 0'\ 0 I..(\~ so 0"".0 1..(\ f('\

• • • • • • • • •• •

K"'\ U'\ 0'\ -.0 c-...::t r-I K"'\ r-I C\I

CIJ

~I 171~1117~~~~~7~~11114111~~i~ 6~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~1~1~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~


I 1'\

fit e e
!~ro
e i ~~ ~~ru*~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~S§~~~$~~~
0
It OE--l
~ '" -
~ ~ ffl
... I~ ~o~~o~ooooo~~~~~
~ z~ 'to ~.j.n ~~ ~s~~.st5'&~
<
~ I
~~ t- o ",(\!ruo\t--=i~r-I
• t • . .. . .. ..
(\J C\I(\Jtc'\~r-I '"
~~
~
I::J OOOOl'('\ot(\o-:tO\~'OO'OOt<\-=t~
.~
e
~~
Co')
! m
til ~ 0 ~ 1<'\ ""' ~ ~ 0 -=t 0\ ~ to-, ~ C\J ::I ~
~;:l
r& "':10 'eo ~,j ~~ ~j. ~ :gg 0\.'0
0
e ~ E-tE-!~ 000 ate 0 $0 ~~f}!.:::J ~ tir~.@
~ ~~~
== 0
..
eo ~
..
::;, iii, ,...ooo°tS°SO~~~::t@@~
til
o~~
~ 0
t; (J\ 0 ~ t<'\ 0\ '-J) ~ t:! r;... r-I 'to ~ ~* 150 r-I
r,l
"_ @ - ~T.O ~~'60t\I ~~~...:t..:t ~'iR
~~
~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
888~~~~~~~~~~~~~
. ~~
.. :!iC!J '" ~ ~'>O :4' S;-=t ~ tG' ~ 11'\ til ~ '60 &t ~
B K'\
H 4~~~~~~~~~~~~~z~
s ~I ~ bll ~ ~ n. ~..p _.:) ~ ~ 0 () §.o.o ~
i ~~<J!iJj~888F'!;~r!..,~&1"'
~~@~~~~~~~-=t~~~~~
&:Iv'):
, ~
~ ~I o ~ (\.! N".;:t U'\-.o
U'\ K"\'i -1 to- U'\ ., 'i 0'\ n r-t r-t ..... r:I
• ~ 0$ ~~~~~~~3~~~~~~~~
-2i-t- I.
- ~

e e

~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~88!!!~~i~~t!~i~

n~~~~~~~n~~~~~~~~~~~g~Sn~~


-


---------w __ ~~-, __

~~ro~~~ro~~ ~ ~ro~~ ro~

• • • • • • • •• •••••• ••

~~~~oro~~~ ~~~~~~ O~




~'Q ~
I~
~
I;)
i:i
(f)'!::J
~:s:- S
~~
~ ~
~
H
~
!'a
~
~
g~;
~§
t/.l
Q~~
Efi1°
t/.l c:=
i •
t/.l
.
E§~ ~
Bi ~ ~
0 (.I)
e~ ~
~
t/.l
(f) Z
~
E~ ttl
~I
~
~
~~
~~
~~
~
~
0:2:
~~ t/.l
~
il~
1-3 ~
~ t3I
>'l!O~ ~
o~~ ..
Ii::
~~! ~
l%!~ @
..
~

WWII Pre-Flight Training History

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

WWII Pre-Flight Training History

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

This Pa e Declassified lAW E012958

Вам также может понравиться

WWII Pre-Flight Training History

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

WWII Pre-Flight Training History

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

﻿This Pa e Declassified lAW E012958

Вам также может понравиться

This Pa e Declassified lAW E012958