Enola Gay or Bock's Car crew dying of cancer
T.E.M.
In teaching on WWII I am often posed the question, Did the crews
suffer any effects or death due to complications from the radiation in
their missions over Japan?
In all my research I have never discovered anything that says they
didn't go on to live their lives after the war.
Can anyone point me toward evidence that I can use to correctly
respond to this question?
Thank you!
Jeff nor Lisa
> In teaching on WWII I am often posed the question, Did the crews
> suffer any effects or death due to complications from the radiation in
> their missions over Japan?
Based on published interviews appearing long after the war, it
appears that the crews did not suffer unusual effects.
Unfortunately, too many people look at atomic weapons in isolation
and not in the greater context of the war.
But I would submit the question shouldn't be answered at all
because it is significantly out of context of important
larger issues. Those issues are:
1) Total losses for B-29 crews for various reasons,
2) Unusual sickness/death for Manhattan Engineering District employees.
(1)
The B-29 crew's exposure to radiation, if any, was limited to the
single event and was controlled by the considerable distance
the plane was in relation to the explosion. IIRC, they planed
that a ten mile distance would give double the safety margin and
one plane turned out to be 15 miles away. Thus, it is unlikely
that the B-29 crews would suffer adverse exposure.
However, being on a B-29 crew was hazardous in itself. The planes
were not reliable, reports describe out of a large fleet takeoff,
a few would fail and crash on takeoff. Engine fires were common.
Then of course were enemy attacks.
On some fireraids, the B-29 crews were exposed to heavy smoke from
burning buildings (and people). The March 1945 raid on Tokyo should
always be mentioned to students because it killed 100,000 people,
injured a great many more, and destroyed a very substantial amount
of property through an induced firestorm. Whatever questions are
asked of the atomic raids must also be asked of the fire raids;
many people aren't aware of the enormous devastation and death
of conventional bombing.
(2)
The Manhattan Engineer District employed thousands of people
to prepare active materials and assemble weapons. Most had no
idea of what they were working with. The MED attempted to provide
proper shielding and medical checks, but they had little radiation
experience to go by and tended to focus more on acute symptons
rather than cumulative long term exposure. Since the workers didn't
know the threat, they weren't as cooperative with medical checks as
they might have been. Radiation may have been allowed to accumulate
in some places unknowingly due to lack of experience and knowledge
(see Feynman's memoirs).
Also, people felt compelled to produce for the war effort.
Indeed, even the scientists who knew better weren't cooperative,
one scientist, expecting a child, concealed her pregnacy so she
could keep working in radiation surroundings, including taking
radioactive measurements. (I would be curious as to the subsequent
health of her children and grandchildren).
Some of the scientists died rather young, but it is hard to tell
whether it was just wartime work or their prior and subsequent
physics research. Yet other scientists lived to a ripe old age;
Edward Teller recently just passed away, at 95 I think.
It is also hard to isolate wartime work from other issues; as
mentioned, people had nasty industrial exposures before and after
the war; they didn't know as much in those days. Almost everyone
smoked. Air pollution was much higher. Asbestos was seen as a
magic mineral great for safety, not a hazard.
[comments welcome, please reply publicly]
--
Cub Driver
>didn't go on to live their lives after the war.
They most certainly did go on with their lives. Col Tibbets remained
in the Air Force postwar, and after his retirement ran an air-taxi and
consulting business; Maj Sweeney became a banker, as I recall, in
Boston. Both were successful and long-lived; both surfaced to brief
fame (unusual for Sweeney, who preferred to move on) for the 50th
anniversary of the Hiroshima blast; and I believe both are still
alive. Again, it is harder to know about Sweeney, a more private man.
all the best -- Dan Ford
email: war...@mailblocks.com (put Cubdriver in subject line)
The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Adventure sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com
--
Merlin Dorfman
...
> Some of the scientists died rather young, but it is hard to tell
> whether it was just wartime work or their prior and subsequent
> physics research. Yet other scientists lived to a ripe old age;
> Edward Teller recently just passed away, at 95 I think.
Many of the "big names" died quite young, and I believe mainly
of cancer (Oppenheimer, Fermi, von Neumann, etc.). Of course they
were involved in nuclear research before and after the war as well.
I always thought that the few who did not seem to be affected,
such as Teller and a friend of mine who was at Los Alamos from 1944
until 1955 or so, should be/have been checked over to see if it
could be determined why they seemed to be immune.
--
Merlin Dorfman
> They most certainly did go on with their lives. Col Tibbets remained
> in the Air Force postwar, and after his retirement ran an air-taxi and
> consulting business; Maj Sweeney became a banker, as I recall, in
> Boston. Both were successful and long-lived; both surfaced to brief
> fame (unusual for Sweeney, who preferred to move on) for the 50th
> anniversary of the Hiroshima blast; and I believe both are still
> alive. Again, it is harder to know about Sweeney, a more private man.
If the moderators will grant me a brief exception to the 50%
new material: Maj. (later BGEN) Sweeney died lasst Thursday:
<http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040718/ap_on_re_us/obit_sweeney_5>
According to the obituary, he stayed in the Air Force and
became the youngest general in Air Force history at that time.
--
Enoch
Cub Driver <war...@mailblocks.com> wrote in
news:cdeuet$6ah$1...@gnus01.u.washington.edu:
> They most certainly did go on with their lives. Col Tibbets remained
> in the Air Force postwar, and after his retirement ran an air-taxi and
> consulting business; Maj Sweeney became a banker, as I recall, in
> Boston. Both were successful and long-lived; both surfaced to brief
> fame (unusual for Sweeney, who preferred to move on) for the 50th
> anniversary of the Hiroshima blast; and I believe both are still
> alive. Again, it is harder to know about Sweeney, a more private man.
Speaking of Maj. Sweeney, he just passed away (Thursday, 7/15/04).
www.boston.com/dailynews/199/region/Pilot_of_plane_that_dropped_at:.shtml
As for the original poster's question, I don't think that any medically
valid conclusions can be drawn from such a small sample size (around 50
people including ground crew). Even so, I would think that the aircraft's
skin would shield the crew from alpha and beta emitters, and distance from
the detonation would attenuate the effects of gamma radiation.
/
Cub Driver
I just now learned that then-Major Charles Sweeney, the pilot of
Bockscar, died in Boston last Thursday at the age of 84. According to
an obituary in the Aero-News email newsletter:
A staunch defender of the atomic missions, Sweeney told Quincy
(MA) Patriot Ledger in 1995, 'I looked upon it as a duty. I just
wanted the war to be over, so we could get back home to our loved
ones. I hope my missions were the last ones of their kind that will
ever be flown.'
His rank was Brig. Gen (retired).
all the best -- Dan Ford
email: war...@mailblocks.com (put Cubdriver in subject line)
The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com
Chris Mark
>valid conclusions can be drawn from such a small sample size (around 50
>people including ground crew).
B-25s on low-level missions were active in the area that day and possibly some
of these might be included in the sample. I have no idea what the health
history of these crews were.
That morning B-25s knocked out the early warning radar on Oshima Island in the
Danjo Gunto about 120 miles southwest of Nagasaki (two were damaged by flak,
one losing hydraulics and forced to belly land). Other B-25s swept the sea and
islands between Nagasaki and Sasebo, sinking a number of small vessels as well
as a 1,000-ton freighter. Although some airplanes were within a few miles of
Nagasaki when the A-bomb detonated, no crew member noticed the explosion or
mushroom cloud due to low cloud cover in the area, with a ceiling in places of
only 500 feet.
Chris Mark
--
P S
Maj. General Charles Sweeney who piloted Boxcar died Friday at the
Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. He was 84 years old.
The cause of death was pulmonary complications of congestive heart
failure.
Phil
Cub Driver
wrote:
>His rank was Brig. Gen (retired).
According to the New York Times obituary, that should have been major
general. He attained it in the Massachusetts Air Guard, which he
served until 1977. You can read the obit at http://tinyurl.com/4r6ah
(NYT requires you to register, but it isn't painful). The obit is a
fair one, and covers the 1995 excitement over the Enola Gay exhibit in
Washington. Sweeney testified before the Senate at that time.
all the best -- Dan Ford
email: war...@mailblocks.com (put Cubdriver in subject line)
The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com
--
Enoch
xmar...@aol.compost (Chris Mark) wrote in
news:cdhm4o$fue$1...@gnus01.u.washington.edu:
> B-25s on low-level missions were active in the area that day and
> possibly some of these might be included in the sample. I have no idea
> what the health history of these crews were.
> That morning B-25s knocked out the early warning radar on Oshima Island
> in the Danjo Gunto about 120 miles southwest of Nagasaki (two were
> damaged by flak, one losing hydraulics and forced to belly land).
[...]
Had any of the B-25 crews been exposed to fallout, doubtless there would
have been medical issues. However, Little Boy was an airburst, so fallout
was minimal, and 120 miles is a safe distance for a 21KT bomb.
I think the original poster was alluding to the effects of exposure to the
detonation, and perhaps exposure to radiation just by being in proximity to
the weapon. In the former case, I believe that the slant range of 15 to
20 miles would attenuate the effects of radiation. In the latter case,
sub-critical masses of plutonium (Fat Man) and uranium (Little Boy) are
alpha emitters. A sheet of paper can serve as an alpha particle shield;
the uranium in Little Boy was contained within a cut-down naval gun
barrel, and the plutonium sphere in Fat Man was surrounded by Baratol
and RDX explosives, all within a duraluminum case.
Alpha particles do present a radiological hazard, but only if allowed to
enter the body (i.e., inhaling or ingesting uranium or plutonium dust).
Finally, there is the issue of distinguishing the effects of radiation
exposure from other carcinogens, especially those faced by USAAC officers
of that era (e.g., nicotine, asbestos, perchlorate).
/
Chris Mark
>From: Enoch root@
>Had any of the B-25 crews been exposed to fallout, doubtless there would
>have been medical issues. However, Little Boy was an airburst, so fallout
>was minimal, and 120 miles is a safe distance for a 21KT bomb.
No doubt. Several B-25s were within a few miles of Nagasaki when the bomb went
off conducting sea sweeps. The crews noticed nothing. Besides cloud cover,
they may very well have been shielded by terrain features. I doubt they were
in the area long enough to be affected by fallout. I wonder if any USN or MC
aircraft were in the vicinity? There were plenty of sea targets as much
shipping to and from Korea transitted the area.
Minor anecdote: The crew of a B-25 shot down on Aug 8 was rescued by the
submarine Pomfret, which also had on board a number of rescued Japanese seamen.
On Aug 9 the sub was standing life guard duty some miles away from Nagasaki.
Below decks some of the B-25 crew and some of the Japanese played casino, with
the Japanese repeatedly being caught cheating! The Japanese also bargained
with the sub's crew, promising that if they sailed close inshore and let them
go, they would come back with women for their entertainment. All this while
tens of thousands of their countrymen were being incinerated in a nuclear
holocaust.
Chris Mark
Chris Mark
>submarine Pomfret
As a bit of trivia, the Pres. Carter served on the Pomfret in the postwar
years.
Chris Mark
--
Jeff nor Lisa
Enoch <ro...@eruditorium.org> wrote
> Finally, there is the issue of distinguishing the effects of radiation
> exposure from other carcinogens, especially those faced by USAAC officers
> of that era (e.g., nicotine, asbestos, perchlorate).
I think this is the toughest challenge in studying medical problems
as a result of Manhattan Eng District activities. Any wartime
industrial worker would likely be exposed to a great many nasty
things over the next 25-30 years until pollution controls caught up.
As mentioned, almost everyone smoked back then. Smoking in itself
is bad enough, but combined with other junk it gets really bad.
Asbestos was the "magic mineral" because it had excellent fire/heat
and noise insulating qualities. Instead of seen as dangerous, it was
seen as a good scientific wonder and widely used for safety.
Air pollution back then was horrible. Most railroad trains, industry,
and power plants burned coal with little if any pollution control.
Open air coke ovens were still used in some places which gave off
horrible chemicals (most coke ovens by then used collectors because
the emissions were valuable, but older units remained in service).
Some towns had midday blackouts from exceptionally bad pollution.
Workers in industrial settings were exposed to all sorts of chemicals
with far less safeguards than today. Wastes went into the air which
was breathed by workers and their families in their homes.
Diet was much richer in saturated fats than today. General Groves,
overweight, himself died of a heart attack despite otherwise having
a very strong constitution. I don't think food processing was regulated
to the extent that it is today. (However, I believe more people ate fresh
and more natural foods back then than today; ie milk, butter, and eggs
from their own backyard.)
Industrial accidents were common back then. Indeed, Groves said in
his book eight people were killed in accidents in the District.
Chris Mark
>USAAC officers
Can we _pu-leeze_ stop talking about the "USAAC" in WW2? It was (commonly) the
Army Air Force or even just the Air Force (officially the Army Air Forces).
I dug out a little pamphlet from that era the other day. Title is "Maxwell
Field, Alabama, Headquarters SEAAF Training Center," not "SEAAC." On the
inside front cover is the copy, "Maxwell Field, Alabama, one of the oldest of
the Air Force's many flying fields.... Maxwell Field is the headquarters for
the Souteast Army Air Forces Training Center. Also located here is the Army
Air Forces' Preflight School (Pilot), where cadets are first inducted into the
Air Forces...."
Not a mention of the "AAC."
Along with the pamplet, I dug out the hardcover book Army Air Forces Southeast
Training Center published in 1942. In acknowlegements, the book mentions, Air
Forces Division-War Department, Army Air Forces Gulf Coast Training Center,
Army Air Forces West Coast Training Center, Army Air Forces Technical Training
Command, et al ad nauseum. The introduction to the book is by Lt. Gen. H.H.
Arnold, Commanding General, Army Air Forces. In it he says, "...at every
base...of the United States Army Air Forces...."
Then follows a history chapter titled, "The Development of the Army Air
Forces," in which there is a paragraph which begins, "By the final
reorganization or 'streamlining' which took place last March, the Air Corps
ceased to exist, even as a purely administrative organization...." That's the
only mention of the Air Corps I can find in the book. It is _always_ Army Air
Forces or Air Forces. Period.
As to the health of that era, all one really needs to do is look at actuarial
tables. It was a lot worse, and those who lived to a ripe old age generally
looked like hell. There were no women in the WW2 era in their late 50s who
looked like Cher does today (forgetting the cosumes : ) )
Chris Mark
Cub Driver
>Army Air Force or even just the Air Force (officially the Army Air Forces).
According to the Historical Dictionary of the U.S. Air Force, the U.S.
Army Air Corps was established 2 July 1926. It ceased to exist on 20
June 1941 with the creation of the U.S. Army Air Forces. (The plural
gave and still gives a lot of people trouble.) It was much more than a
name change, and in all but name marked the creation of an independent
air service.
For us boys, the most significant part of the change was the
difficulty of adapting the last line of the air force hymn: "Nothing
can stop the Army Air Corps!" to the new reality. We always sang "Army
Air Force!" but the title indicates that we were wrong, and that we
should have used the plural.
George Hardy
> In teaching on WWII I am often posed the question, Did the crews
> suffer any effects or death due to complications from the radiation in
> their missions over Japan?
Ten man crew? One would expect that three would/will die of
cancer. In any examination of deaths and death rates, it is
important to factor in the expected base line. An example is
the statement that the USA is losing 1,000 WWII veterans a day.
Well, that is 365,000 a year. 11 million veterans. Apply the
"expected base line" and you will find that either 1,000 is a
very low number or that being in WWII was a life enhancing
experience.
GFH
--
Cub Driver
>Army Air Force or even just the Air Force (officially the Army Air Forces).
According to the Historical Dictionary of the U.S. Air Force, the U.S.
KP
Cub Driver wrote in message ...
>>Can we _pu-leeze_ stop talking about the "USAAC" in WW2? It was
(commonly) the
>>Army Air Force or even just the Air Force (officially the Army Air Forces).
>
>According to the Historical Dictionary of the U.S. Air Force, the U.S.
>Army Air Corps was established 2 July 1926. It ceased to exist on 20
>June 1941 with the creation of the U.S. Army Air Forces. (The plural
>gave and still gives a lot of people trouble.) It was much more than a
>name change, and in all but name marked the creation of an independent
>air service.
>
>For us boys, the most significant part of the change was the
>difficulty of adapting the last line of the air force hymn: "Nothing
>can stop the Army Air Corps!" to the new reality. We always sang "Army
>Air Force!" but the title indicates that we were wrong, and that we
>should have used the plural.
Colloquial usage aside, the Air Corps was a branch of the United States Army
the same as Infantry, Cavalry, Field Artillery, Ordnance Corps, Chemical
Corps, or any of the others.
It was created by Congress on 2 Jul 1926 as part of The National Defense Act
of that year.
It continued as a *branch* with all the associated administrative functions
(officers were commissioned into the Air Corps, the winged prop lapel
insignia was the insignia of the Air Corps, etc) until it was disestablished
by Act of Congress on 18 Sep 47 when the National Security Act of 1947
created the United States Air Force.
The Army Air Forces (plural), along with the Army Ground Forces, and Army
Service Forces were functional commands created on 20 June 1941. These
three commands took over all (or nearly all) of the operational functions
formerly performed by the individual branches. For example, the training,
doctrine, and organization of Infantry units was no longer the
responsibility the Chief of Infantry but rather the Commander, Army Ground
Forces.
This distinction between administration and operations affected primarily
officers because, until very recently, enlisted men of the US Army were not
assigned to a branch and wore the insignia of the unit of assignment (eg, a
soldier with an Infantry MOS who somehow found himself assigned to a
quartermaster company would wear QMC insignia).
The AGF, ASF, and AAF all had officers from the various branches assigned as
needed to meet operational needs.
For example, a doctor assigned to the Eighth Air Force (part of the USAAF)
would still be commissioned into the Medical Corps and wear MC insignia.
Likewise, Army Ground and Army Service Forces units could and did have Air
Corps officers assigned as needed. These officers would hold commissions in
the AC and wear AC insignia.
During and immediately after the war the use of the term "Air Force" or
variations of it (AAF, USAAF, etc) was preferred and encouraged over "Air
Corps" even in many official or semi-official documents. It was part of the
public relations drive for a separate service. The idea was to get everyone
used to saying and hearing the term "Air Force." Even in situations where
"Air Corps" was more technically correct.
mike
Cub Driver <war...@mailblocks.com> wrote in message news:<ce1rjv$94e$1...@gnus01.u.washington.edu>...
> According to the Historical Dictionary of the U.S. Air Force, the U.S.
> Army Air Corps was established 2 July 1926. It ceased to exist on 20
> June 1941 with the creation of the U.S. Army Air Forces. (The plural
> gave and still gives a lot of people trouble.) It was much more than a
> name change, and in all but name marked the creation of an independent
> air service.
_The Official Guide to the Army Air Forces_ 1st printing May 1944
lists
------------------
"in 1935 an air combat organization was established to complement
the Air Corps- the General Headquarters(GHQ) Air Force. Later renamed
Air Force Combat Command, this was a unified combat force composed of
the various fighting air units....With the creation of the Air Force
Combat Command, the Air Corps concentrated on supply and training
funcions....
Shortly after Pearl Harbor, the US Army was reorganized. The
Air Corps and Air Force Combat Command were merged into the AAF.
Infantry,Cavalry,Field Artillery and other surface combat elements
were merged into the Army Ground Forces."
------------------
from http://libraryautomation.com/nymas/usaaf1.html
" In an Army reorganization on 9 March 1942 the Air Corps and Air
Force Combat Command were discontinued and Arnold was made Commanding
General of Army Air Forces"
both suggest that the AAC lasted till March'42
**
mike
**
Chris Mark
>gave and still gives a lot of people trouble.)
I notice in the Maxwell Field pamphlet I quoted that sometimes the possessive
apostrophe is inside the "s" (Air Force's) and sometimes outside (Air Forces'),
so even in 1942 that plural was a nuisance.
As far as someone commenting that the Air Corps existed until March, 1942, it
did--as a training command only. When AR 95-5 became effective in June, 1941
the air arm changed its name to the Army Air Forces. It consisted of two
branches, the Air Corps to handle training and logistical matters and the Air
Force Combat Command to handle combat. Revisions to AR 95-5 saw the Air Corps
name disappear completely by March, 1942. AR 95-5 was designed to give the air
arm greater autonomy specifically _without_ the need for congressional action
which might lead to all sorts of unwanted changes once politicians got
involved.
Chris Mark
--
Cub Driver
>Colloquial usage aside, the Air Corps was a branch of the United States Army
>the same as Infantry, Cavalry, Field Artillery, Ordnance Corps, Chemical
>Corps, or any of the others.
Not during World War II. It ceased to exist six months before the U.S.
entered the war, on 20 June 1941.
Even before, it was hardly on the level of the other branches. There
was an Assistant Secretary of War for the Air, Robert Lovett, but none
for field artillery!
In March 1942, Circular 59 increased air's autonomy by making the
USAAF, the Army Ground Forces, and the Army Service Forces coordinate
commands under the Army Chief of Staff. Thus, it would be more
accurate to say that the USAAF was a branch of the United States Army
the same as all those others combined.
mike
Cub Driver <war...@mailblocks.com> wrote in message news:<ce1rjv$94e$1...@gnus01.u.washington.edu>...
> According to the Historical Dictionary of the U.S. Air Force, the U.S.
> Army Air Corps was established 2 July 1926. It ceased to exist on 20
> June 1941 with the creation of the U.S. Army Air Forces. (The plural
> gave and still gives a lot of people trouble.) It was much more than a
> name change, and in all but name marked the creation of an independent
> air service.
_The Official Guide to the Army Air Forces_ 1st printing May 1944
Chris Mark
>USAAF, the Army Ground Forces, and the Army Service Forces coordinate
>commands under the Army Chief of Staff.
As a data point, chief author of Circular 59 was Carl Spaatz, chief of the air
staff under the June 1941 arrangement. He argued, and others conquered, that
the arrangement gave too much power to the General Staff to control what the
air service did.
Good examinations of this era are in "The US Army in World War II: Chief of
Staff: Prewar Plans and Preparations," by Mark Watson, and "The Development of
Air Doctrine in the Army Air Arm, 1917-1941," by Thomas Greer. An interesting
read, especially because of who the author was, is "The Fight for Air Power,"
published in 1942 under the pen name William Huie. The author's real name was
Maj. Gen. Hugh Knerr, a very interesting gentleman, indeed. An Annapolis
graduate who became such a fierce advocate for heavy bombers (being a prime
mover in the B-15, B-17 and B-19 projects) during the interwar years that he
was forced into "exile" and then retirement. Recalled to duty after Pearl
Harbor, he commanded the 8th Air Force's logistical arm, the Air Service
Command. Immediately after the war, he headed the Air Board, which defined the
role of the proposed independent Air Force.
Chris Mark
--
Cub Driver
>both suggest that the AAC lasted till March'42
Both are incorrect, if they imply that. The USAAF was (or were, if you
prefer) created by Army Regulation 95-5, issued on 20 June 1941. At
that time the rest of the army was divided into Army Ground Forces,
Army Service Forces, Defense and Theater Commands.
This was not entirely satisfactory, especially after the U.S. was
actually at war, so in March 1942 the organization was refined as you
have referenced. This was done by War Department Circular 59 of 2
March 1942. The Office of the Chief of the Air Corps (Hap Arnold)
existed until that date, but the Air Corps itself did not, any more
than the USAAF existed before June 1941 despite the existence of a GHQ
Air Force.
KP
Cub Driver wrote in message ...
>
>>the same as Infantry, Cavalry, Field Artillery, Ordnance Corps, Chemical
>>Corps, or any of the others.
>
>Not during World War II. It ceased to exist six months before the U.S.
>entered the war, on 20 June 1941.
>
>Even before, it was hardly on the level of the other branches. There
>was an Assistant Secretary of War for the Air, Robert Lovett, but none
>for field artillery!
> In March 1942, Circular 59 increased air's autonomy by making the
>USAAF, the Army Ground Forces, and the Army Service Forces coordinate
>commands under the Army Chief of Staff. Thus, it would be more
>accurate to say that the USAAF was a branch of the United States Army
>the same as all those others combined.
You're confusing functional organizations with statuatory organizations.
The Air Corps was established as a branch of the United States Army by law.
The National Defense Act of 1927 to be exact. Only Congress has the
authority to make laws.
In order to disestablish (ie, make it cease to exist) required *another*
law. The National Defense Act of 1947 to be exact.
The creation of the AGF, ASF, and AAF was an internal War Department
*functional* organization change. Doing so required only the stroke of the
CoS's pen. No different than changing from a "square" division to a
"triangular" one.
That internal functional reorganization may have made the Air Corps nothing
more than a figurehead or an office with nothing to do, much like the Chief
of Cavalry - But *it still existed* under statute and it is not wholly
accurate to say it was replaced by the AAF.
Cub Driver
>so even in 1942 that plural was a nuisance.
It certainly was! You just try, as a patriotic 10-year-old, to belt
out the closing line of "Nothing can stop the Army Air Forces!"
I used the singular throughout the war. It wasn't until comparatively
recently, when I began writing about military aviation, that I
realized it was correctly plural.
MMerzzee
2 different LST's that entered Nagasaki in mid september 1945, carrying the 2nd
marine division to that city and surrounding area. These men, one a navy vey
and the other a uscg vet both have had multiple cancers over the years. to
date the us govt maintains that these men were exposed to less than 1 rad
accumulated exposure.
The incidence of cancer from the remainder of the USS cambria task force that
entered nagasaki is unknown. There are mixed reports from the survivors of the
2nd marine division that was stationed there in the demolished mitsubishi plant
and operated out of the city. they were issued no protective clothing or
breathing gear, were never warned about the hjazards of radiation and the drank
the water, ate the food and breathed the dust and dirt.
The main thing that these vets remembered, and one of the first things that
they both said to me in their interviews was the smell of the dead, many of
whom were still floating in the harbor and rivers.
--
Cub Driver
>That internal functional reorganization may have made the Air Corps nothing
>more than a figurehead or an office with nothing to do, much like the Chief
>of Cavalry - But *it still existed* under statute and it is not wholly
>accurate to say it was replaced by the AAF.
But the Chief of the Air Corps ceased to exist in March 1942, replaced
by the Chief (later commanding general) of the Army Air Forces. He was
the same individual, of course.
But if you are going to argue that the U.S. Army Air Corps existed
until 1947 because Congress did not abolish it, then we are in the
realm of fantasy, and there is no point in carrying on.
Justin Broderick
"Cub Driver" <war...@mailblocks.com> wrote in message
news:cedpl6$1dq$1...@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
> But if you are going to argue that the U.S. Army Air Corps existed
> until 1947 because Congress did not abolish it, then we are in the
> realm of fantasy, and there is no point in carrying on.
>
According to Title 10 USC, the words "Air Corps" were not removed from the
US Code until 1947:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/711.notes.html?DB=uscode
The National Archives says: "Air Corps formally abolished by transfer of
functions to newly established United States Air Force pursuant to the
National Security Act of 1947 (61 Stat. 502), July 26, 1947." See
http://www.archives.gov/research_room/federal_records_guide/army_air_forces_
rg018.html
The Army Air Forces Historical Assocaition agrees that the Air Corps existed
throughout the war. A quote from http://www.aafha.org/aaf_or_aircorps.html
:
<<In the course of wartime expansion and reorganization,
the Air Corps ceased to be an operating organization.
All elements of Army aviation were merged into the
Army Air Forces. Although the Air Corps still legally
existed as an Army branch, the position of Chief of
the Air Corps was left vacant, and the Office of the
Chief of the Air Corps was dissolved. >>
Officers that wore the winged propeller on the collar were members of the
Air Corps branch. The AAF used personnel from all branches, not just Air
Corps. After the USAF was formed, the Army didn't have a seperate air
branch for many years, until the Army Aviation branch was established in
1983.
--Justin