Strength and Organization of United States Forces.
As one of the United Nations faced with war by Germany, Japan, Italy, and their allies, several determinations had to be made by the United States, among them these: What should be the strength and composition of the United States Army? Of the Navy? Where should the greatest strength be used?
Owing to the losses in naval vessels at Pearl Harbor, in the opinion of this author, it seemed necessary at first to take a somewhat defensive attitude in the Pacific and to concentrate on knocking out Germany and Italy; that accomplished, to throw the full strength of the Allies against Japan. Thus the strength and composition of the German army must determine, in a large measure, the strength and composition of the United States Army.
The supplies for the Army are planned at least a year ahead, so its prospective strength must be estimated.
The Germans have 40 divisions in Western Europe and the occupied countries, 200 divisions on the Russian Front and with her allies have all told 500 divisions. The Japanese have some 85 divisions.
The Army Planned for the United States.
It was decided, after considering the help we should be able to render our allies — shipping supplies, equipment, and manpower — to set 7,500,000 as the target for the Army by the end of 1943. Of these 3,300,000 would be in the Ground Forces, 2,000,000 in Training and Supply Service, and 2,200,000 in the Air Forces.
The kinds of forces depend on the kind of warfare they will be engaged in and the part of the world for which they will be trained, as well as the kind of arms the enemy uses, and his methods of using them.
Considering the number of German armored divisions, it has been decided (Stimson) to expand the armored divisions from 10 to 14, also to create a Third Armored Corps and a Twelfth Corps of Infantry troops (increased from 9).
A corps is composed of two or more divisions. This will give a total strength of some 71 organized divisions, 59 of them infantry (some motorized), 2 cavalry, and 10 armored. In addition there will be a great number of separate regiments and smaller units available for service, attached to division or corps units or independent. But only a fraction of the 71-division total will be trained, equipped, and ready for combat at the end of the year.
Our present training schedule calls for about ten months' basic training for each newly formed division, then about eight weeks in coordination with air forces and tanks. Divisions now being formed will not normally be ready for active service for at least a year from date of activation. For many months the rate of activation and training will exceed our ability to transport and supply them overseas.
Specialized Training.
Much attention is being paid to specialized training. Mountain and ski troops are trained in the winter. Tank divisions, with attached units, practice desert warfare in the Southwest. Air borne troops and parachute troops are being trained.
Officer Leadership.
Officer Candidate Schools are expanded so that 90,000 or more a year may be trained. These new officers, selected from the ranks for their leadership and other qualifications, are already proving themselves well-fitted in service.
General Officers.
Battles are not settled merely by the quality of material and the courage of the troops. Much depends on the quality of the command. General George C. Marshall (himself most carefully selected by the President as Chief-of-Staff of the Army) stated in a letter to a senator in response to a question as to the policy followed in selecting generals: 'There are few matters more highly important or to which I devote more personal attention than recommendations for general officers. The success of military campaigns and the safety of thousands of lives are dependent on a general officer in combat. I feel that my responsibility to the soldier and his family and the necessity for maintaining maximum efficiency in our armed forces takes full precedence over any interest in the individual officer whose efficiency is in doubt.
'The critical nature of this period makes it imperative that all personal considerations be ruthlessly ignored in the selection of general officers. The criterion for a general officer must be demonstrated ability to meet his great responsibilities. No compromise is possible. Highly efficient and energetic leadership is essential to success. No considerations other than evident ability to produce results can be the yardstick for my recommendations. Any officer who is professionally equipped to cope with the terrific pressures of modern warfare, and who gives evidence of outstanding qualities of leadership will be recommended for promotion. Consequently, I propose to continue recommending only those officers who in my estimation have measured up to the highest standards of military skill, who have demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of modern methods of warfare, and who possess the physical stamina, the moral courage, the strength of character, and flexibility of mind necessary to withstand the burdens which modern combat conditions will impose. These attributes necessarily rise above, and have no relation to quotas for various branches or components, political considerations, or geographical allocations.
'I have had searching examinations and reports made before each promotion list was approved.'
Shortly after this letter was produced the Senate confirmed the nominations of 24 brigadier generals for promotion to major general, and of 81 colonels for temporary promotion to brigadier general.
Besides the annual efficiency reports, the officer's success in handling men in maneuvers under very adverse circumstances (the nearest one can get to battle) is considered. When actual combat with the enemy occurs, the actions of officers, good or bad, cause promotion or relief or change of duties. Our school system is very thorough. Officers are selected with great care for attendance at the Command and General Staff School at Ft. Leavenworth. From the graduates of this school, officers are selected for attendance at the War College — it is almost entirely from such graduates, considering all their service that officers are recommended for general officers.
General-Staff Officers.
To even the best of commanders the General Staff Officers are of greatest importance in assisting general officers in their duties. Most of the higher General Staff Officers are graduates of the Command and General Staff School and many of the War College.
Invasion of North Africa.
The first real test of our Commanding General and General Staff was the invasion of North Africa. After the Commander-in-Chief, President Roosevelt, was convinced of its practicability and Mr. Churchill had agreed, generals and staff officers were sent to London and the details worked out. Questions of transportation, of supply, and of command of land, sea, and air forces were efficiently solved.
The plans were formulated in exact detail — the gathering of the troops to ports of embarkation, their supply, their convoy across the submarine-infested Atlantic and in the Mediterranean to the ports of attack. The operations against those ports included the details of landing, the plane and surface ship-protection, the use of the ships' guns to assist landing, the seizure of railroads and highways, the getting of supplies to hungry men, and the moving of columns toward Bizerte and Tunis, thence toward Tripoli. It was a great planning operation: the loading of tanks, planes, and supplies so that what was wanted first came off first; the fine service of the Navy in herding the ships in the convoy, protecting them against submarine attack, and possible surface and air fire; and the secrecy which enabled surprise. Even propaganda was ready and showered over France and North Africa. We had followed the German plan of 'Tourists,' who for months had arranged for cooperation with friends in North Africa for guides.
Superb Planning and Cooperation.
The bugaboo of combined operations among allies was beaten by superb planning and cooperation. The question of command of the whole enterprise, of subordination of naval and air forces to the supreme commander, was so well worked out and impressed by the highest authority that there was no quibbling as to whose orders governed and no protest to governments concerned. Even when the question was raised in the House of Commons as to using Admiral Darlan the answer was that that was 'a question for the American Commander.'
The combined Chiefs-of-Staff, and the General Staff planned so well that over 100,000 men in a convoy of 850 ships crossed thousands of miles of sea without the loss of a man. Only one ship was struck by a submarine torpedo, and the troops in that vessel, over 100 miles from shore, took to their landing boats and reached their destination without loss. This great and successful surprise was against the most efficient enemy the world has produced. It was a United States task and to the Chief-of-Staff and his assistants belongs the credit; to the British Navy and British 1st Army for assistance and loyal cooperation great credit is due.
Unity of Command; Organization.
The tragedy of Pearl Harbor may eventually prove to have disclosed lack of unity of command, although General Marshall, Chief-of-Staff of the Army and Admiral King, Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, cooperate to the highest degree. The appointment of Admiral Leahy as Chief-of-Staff of the President as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States assures unity of command regardless of the personality of the other Chiefs-of-Staff. The ability of a Commander or Chief-of-Staff is shown more by his selection of assistants and subordinate commanders than in any other way.
The Army has been streamlined. Instead of the cumbersome organization it had up to this war it has been reorganized into: (1) The Ground Force, headed by Lieut. Gen. Lesley J. McNair, who has the biggest direct command in the Service; (2) The Army Air Forces, headed by Lieut. Gen. Henry H. Arnold; and (3) The Services of Supply, headed by Lieut. Gen. Brehon Burke Somervell. These heads are under the Chief-of-Staff but are most carefully picked and in their provinces are given great latitude and allowed great initiative. Representatives of the Chiefs-of-Staff of the components of the British Armed Forces are stationed in Washington for conference and decision in global affairs. Final decision involving Great Britain and the United States is made by this Combined Chiefs-of-Staff Committee. This is a global war. Detachments and task forces of the United States armed forces are located all over the world. The commanders of these forces have been most carefully chosen and given the latitude and initiative due their responsibilities and semi-independent commands.
Lieut. Gen. George H. Brett commands an area from the Canal Zone to Trinidad, Brazil, and Ecuador. His chief activity is antisubmarine warfare, mostly by air. He also commands anti-aircraft, infantry, engineers, and scores of jungle bases.
General Dwight Eisenhower commanded United States troops in Britain and Europe. He was selected to command the invading forces of the United States and Britain into North Africa. The selection proved very happy as have practically all the selections made or recommended by General Marshall.
In Central Africa as commander is Brig. Gen. Shipler FitzGerald, an air man. His air transport forces are punching bases through interior Africa, creating military airline facilities which could serve a combat army. Lt. Gen. Frank M. Andrews now commands all U. S. Army forces in Great Britain.
The Middle East, Maj. Gen. Lewis H. Brereton, Commander, includes United States airmen, a great supply base depot in Eritrea and the Basra supply line to Russia.
In Hawaii is Lt. Gen. Delos C. Emmons, an air officer. His post is the keystone of any coordinated offensive striking downward from the Aleutians or upward from the Southwest Pacific.
In Alaska Maj. Gen. Simon B. Buckner commands his strengthened ground and air forces which have counter-moved into the outer Aleutians. He is under Naval Command.
In China battle-tried Lt. Gen. Joseph W. Stilwell commands. He speaks Chinese fluently and has the absolute confidence of the Chinese Commander.
In Australia is Gen. Douglas MacArthur. Australian soldiers and MacArthur's air force, later reinforced by U. S. troops, have harried the Japanese in New Guinea and bombed their bases to the North.
Thus can be seen the global area over which the United States Army operates — nearly 1,000,000 American soldiers are already serving outside the boundaries of continental United States.
Quality of Men in the Ranks.
After the higher leadership is thus provided and the best our experience can devise, consider the quality of the men in the ranks. This war will be won not so much by the best equipment as by the best brains — brains all the way through from the general down to the latest recruit. Not necessarily formal education, or book learning, but the individual initiative, individual enterprise, individual ability to size up a situation and determine the best course to follow.
Soldiers are no longer herded into battle but go in with the knowledge that at any moment they may be called upon to make decision on which may depend the whole battle. The 4,250,000 soldiers in this army today have higher educational qualifications than those of any other army. On entrance some are 'soft,' but a rigid course of training soon cures that; after joining a division they must be able to march 27 miles with heavy pack and be ready for combat at the march's end, to surmount all kinds of obstacles.
Younger Recruits.
It has just been decided to bring in youths of 18 and 19. These make the best soldiers — easy to teach, energetic, resourceful. The recruits are given 11 to 13 weeks in training centers and then sent to their final organizations. At training center they learn the duties of the individual soldier, rifle firing, machine-gun firing, marching, taking care of selves in the field, and so forth.
After joining the division they learn the higher duties. The division training from the time a division is activated to the time it is fit for battle is about ten months, and no divisions with less training are to be sent into battle except in great and unforeseen emergency.
Selecting and Training Officers.
In organizing a new division the commanding general is selected and sent to a Refresher School for 60 days to refresh him in his command duties and in the most modern methods as brought from the various battlefields of the world by our very carefully selected observers. The General's Staff is detailed and given a refresher course; then a cadre of 1,200 of more experienced men selected from the old division and sent as a nucleus of the new division. The balance of the troops are taking their course at a training center, learning how to be individual soldiers.
Candidate schools for officers are conducted to procure 90,000 a year. These candidates are selected from soldiers who have served three months and appear to have the best qualifications, as shown especially by leadership in maneuvers and by their entire records. They take a three months' course, and those who are graduated become commissioned lieutenants.
Training for Special Conditions.
These division and separate troops may be sent anywhere, so many are specialized for various possible fields of action. Training centers are set up which duplicate the climate, terrain, and operating conditions under which our troops may fight on foreign fronts. A Libya or North Africa was found in California, a Western Europe in the Carolinas, a Norway in Colorado, tropical jungles in Florida.
Desert Warfare Practiced.
Last spring Col. Riley Ennis came back to the United States after ten months in African desert. Immediately, he and his superiors staked out a training area 180 miles long by 90 miles wide in the California desert. Eight thousand men from every unit of service went to work there building and rehearsing our Desert Warfare Command. Men were taught to fight under a temperature of 110 degrees. They learned to make a gallon of water a day do for all purposes. Special uniforms were tested and adopted. A diet was developed and special refrigeration was perfected to keep it fresh. Army doctors are specially trained to care for injuries and illness peculiar to desert fighting. Army Ordnance set up a special section to figure out how best to protect equipment from desert sand and weather. Special camouflage was developed for them.
The toughened, sun-blackened men of the Desert Command under Maj. Gen. George Patton, then Corps Commander, did in fact go to North Africa, landed near Casablanca, and many with tanks and all paraphernalia are now near Tunis.
Mountain Training.
Other thousands are trying to keep warm in the snows of the Colorado Rockies. The nucleus was taken from expert skiers, mountain climbers, prospectors, guides, and so forth. Men are trained to deliver supplies by pack or parachute. Special uniforms for the mountain troops were tested and adopted. The Ordnance Department furnished special lubricants for guns and machines. The Quartermaster Department went to work on the most suitable food.
Preparation for Jungle Fighting.
Down in the swamps of the Deep South and the jungles of North Florida, jungle troops were trained. These troops are taught infiltration in the jungle. On 48-hour maneuvers in the swamps these men live on two-days' emergency rations and learn to cope with snakes and chiggers. New kinds of land mines are developed. Live camouflage is utilized. Mental training is given. Teachers who have lived with our enemies, watched them fight, studied their tricks, and know their languages and peculiarities are now in every camp. Colored pictures show our soldiers the Japanese and Nazi soldiers in actual combat.
Training of Special Commands.
We have anti-tank commands, anti-aircraft commands, air-troop-carrier commands, paratrooper commands, and ranger commands specially prepared to act with the Navy. They handle boats, embark and disembark through the surf, and seize beach heads, communications, and so forth. These also have just been used in North Africa and disembarked near Casablanca when the waves were six to twelve feet high.
Army Organization.
The division is the Army's real token of strength. It is the smallest complete force ready for large scale combat, and the new American Infantry Division is a fine example of the modern streamlining process. The outstanding feature of the new division is the infantry-artillery combat team. Each of the three regiments in the division has its own battalion of artillery, and these 'combat teams,' training together, attain the highest degree of cooperation. The division commander thus has under him one great fighting force, or three well-integrated separate striking arms. The fire power of an American division is greater than that of a division in any other army. Its mobility also is greater than that of any enemy division. One-third of the manpower of the new American Army will be in the Air Force.
Arms and Equipment.
After leadership, quality of personnel, and efficient training, much depends on arms and equipment. The Ordnance Department has the responsibility of manufacturing, supplying, and maintaining the weapons with which our soldiers fight. A short time ago the President announced that May production of tanks totaled 1,500; of artillery and anti-tank guns, 2,000; of machine guns, 50,000, not including sub-machine guns which would bring the total above 100,000.
America's colossal war production effort, excelling as it does in quantity and quality the output of our enemies, is turning out 'the finest fighting tools ever placed in the hands of fighting men.' (Maj. Gen. L. H. Campbell, Jr., Chief of Ordnance, U.S.A.)
Our ordnance laboratories and engineers are among the world's finest. They have samples, by purchase or capture, of practically all the latest developments of both the Allies and the Axis forces. These are analyzed and tested to discover strength and weakness so as to embody the results of such information in our later types. Such improvements are constantly being made without stopping production.
Effectiveness of the Garand Rifle.
Our M-1 rifle, (the Garand) has increased rifle fire power by 2.5 times. Our machine guns fire at a higher cyclic rate than those of our enemies. They out-function any enemy gun under the most adverse service conditions.
Tank Gun Equipment.
Our tanks are superior to anything the enemy has. Type for type our tanks have heavier guns, heavier armament, and greater speed. We have captured enemy tanks, German and Japanese — we have conducted every conceivable engineering test upon them. These tests, incidentally, are quite aside from the pounding our tanks have given the enemy. The best proof is that in battle our tanks have more than met the trials of combat. Our high velocity 75-mm. guns in our M-3 and M-4 tanks far outrange the best the Germans have. We know by actual tests what our high velocity 75-mm. shells can do to German medium tanks. We blast big holes in them at ranges beyond those their guns can reach. We can fire effectively while the tank is in motion, which the enemy cannot do. We have double-purpose weapons (anti-tank and anti-air) with higher muzzle velocity and greater explosive charges than the German 88-mm. gun.
Anti-Tank and Anti-Aircraft Guns.
Our 105-mm. howitzer is equal or superior to any enemy gun of similar purpose. It is in mass production and replacing the 75-mm. Many of these 105-mm. are on self-propelled armored mounts. The 90-mm. anti-aircraft gun is also now in mass production.
For low-flying aircraft, in addition to machine guns, the improved Bofors 40-mm. quick fire (Swedish design) is adopted and in mass production. The Bofors has a muzzle velocity of 2,850 feet per second and fires up to 140 rounds per minute. Chrysler is making the Bofors for both Army and Navy in the same factories. The Navy uses water-cooled jackets, and the Army, air-cooled.
Tanks and Their Functions.
Tanks are losing their personality. Their chief function used to be to knock out other tanks; now they are becoming a ferry service for infantry and anti-tank guns. Behind the infantry come tanks with their own supporting anti-tank guns, which are a greater menace than the tanks themselves as the latest types are very effective. The German anti-tank gun has a tapered barrel permitting concentration of force, resulting in great muzzle velocity and striking power. The British have developed their own types. Their trend is toward lightly armored powerful weapons operated by small crews.
Maj. Gen. C. L. Scott, U. S. Army armored force veteran states, 'The best way to knock out tanks is with high velocity anti-tank guns with field artillery firing over open sights, or with infantry raiders operating at night with bombs.' These are the primary lessons of the African campaign after four months of service as senior military observer in the Middle East.
When a tank force goes forward it should always be accompanied by a generous complement of infantry, anti-tank guns, and mobile field artillery. President Roosevelt recently disclosed that the attainment of his numerical goal of 45,000 tanks and 60,000 airplanes for 1942 had been sacrificed to obtain weapons with longer range, more fire power and greater armor protection. He emphasized that the output in terms of weight and materials fabricated would be at least equal to the production which would have been obtained had the original schedules been met.
Spares for Tanks and Aircraft.
Combat experience has required a major upward revision in the percentage of spares required for tanks and aircraft. The aircraft requirement of spares has been increased from 15 to 50 per cent; in tanks from 15 to 35 per cent. Some material heretofore marked for tanks will be diverted to the construction of highly mobile speedy artillery as tank killers. Tank destroyers have great maneuverability. They can roll into position and begin firing without unlimbering or facing around. They can outrace their 30-m.p.h. foe, take a devastating crack at close range, or lob shells from five miles away with help of small, low-flying planes to direct fire. Once enemy's tanks are disposed of destroyers are simply mobile field artillery.
Engine Power.
American tanks get the better of their opponents very largely because of their great engine power. Compared with European 'opposite numbers' our tanks have twice the horsepower per ton of weight. (Gen. G. M. Barnes, Army Ordnance.) This gives them greater speed and maneuverability, enabling them to get into positions where their favorable gun power can be used to greatest advantage and making them targets difficult to hit.
Airplanes.
The weapon which, with the tank, has seen most changes in construction and use in 1942 is the airplane. Domination of the air has seemed almost a prerequisite to success on both land and sea. Tank warfare and air warfare are highly skilled trades and their personnel must be of the country's elite. They must be tough, young, intelligent, supple, alert, and full of initiative. They are selected in our own military forces from a youth best educated and probably the richest in the world in initiative and independent thinking.
Although air power has reached highest importance, the decision of land battles is still made mainly on land and the orders which win or lose land battles come from the ground commander. The bombers, the ground strafing planes, the observation planes, and all other aircraft which can help the ground forces to win are still auxiliary to the ground forces. Modern warfare calls for tanks, artillery, motorized infantry, and at times naval support which should be all integrated and employed with the fine, fast coordination of a champion football team.
Air-Forces during Battle.
Prime Minister Churchill, in his Egyptian visit before Gen. Montgomery's successful attack on Rommel, emphasized and directed that during combat, air forces must comply with requirements of the ground commander. Air command must not be independent during battle — one commander must have control of all components. This was most carefully and definitely provided for in the North African Expedition, as Gen. Eisenhower seems to have had none of the troubles generally connected with inter-allied forces, and ground, sea, and air forces acting under one definite commander.
Quality of American Aircraft.
Criticism of certain of our aircraft caused a report, after careful investigation, 'without fear, favor, or affection.' The Office of War Information issues the report, 'The people of the United States have a right to know, within those limits made necessary by military secrecy, the strengths and weaknesses of their fighting men and fighting machines'! The test of battle is the only valid one for any Army or Navy plane, whatever its type.
The best the public can expect, and the best it will get, is that on the average the equipment of the land air forces shall be superior to the equipment of the enemy. The Navy went into the War with considerable quantities of aircraft not of the latest type and unquestionably suffered losses that could have been avoided had the latest equipment been available. But secret battle reports show that the latest floating-base aircraft of the Navy are superior in all types. In the Pacific, as in China, the overall battlescore of Army aircraft has been much better than the enemy's. In the vital European theater our newest fighters have not been tried up to now. Appraisal of our older fighting types, Bell P-39 and Curtiss P-40, compels the conclusion that they are not right for operation under today's high-altitude tactics in Britain. Both are outclassed in the high-altitude field by the British Spitfire and the German Messerschmitt 109 and Focke Wulf 190. But it is one of the paradoxes of aircraft performance that the P-39 has proved a splendid weapon on the Russian and Aleutian fronts (where lower altitudes are the rule) and the P-40 is a first line fighter in Egypt.
Two newer fighting types, the twin-engined Lockheed P-38 (Lightning) and the single-engined Republic P-47 (Thunderbolt) are in production and show great promise of high altitude pursuit planes. Neither has been adequately tested in battle.
The Army four-motored bombers have proved superior in their categories in all theaters. Actual employment of the Boeing B-17 (Flying Fortress) over Europe has exceeded even the fondest expectations of its American proponents. The same kind of record has been made by the Consolidated B-24 in Egypt and in other areas.
M. O. Medium and Light Bombers (B-25 and B-26) are the best in the world. They have been tested in all theaters. U. S. scout bombers, product of the Navy's long-time development of this destructive art, also are without peer among single-engine dive bombers. The firepower and protection of U. S. fighting aircraft (guns, armor, leakproof fuel tanks) are equal in all cases to the best our allies and the enemy have in the air, and in some cases we are decidedly superior.
Fighters.
North American P-51 (Mustang) single-engined, liquid cooled. Newest of Allison-powered U. S. pursuits. Has some of the same limitations of P-40 and P-39. Improvements in the power plant and other technical changes promise a sensational improvement in altitude performance. Lockheed P-38 (Lightning) a two-seated, liquid cooled pursuit plane, has so far only limited tests in action, notably in the Aleutians. Its performance has been brilliant. At its best altitude it is one of the world's fastest fighting aircraft. Constant improvements are being made. Grumman F4F (Wildcat) today's Navy standard fighter, is unquestionably the best carrier fighter in battle service.
Heavy Bombers.
Boeing B-17 (Flying Fortress) a tried and thoroughly tested model with an unequaled combat record (four-engine, air-cooled, turbosuper-charged) has indicated by its work in the Pacific and over Europe that it can carry out high altitude day bombing missions under the protection of its own guns, without fighter escort. Consolidated B-24 (Liberator) four-motored, air cooled. In the Pacific, North Africa, Europe and the Aleutians it has shown itself a top flight performer.
Medium and Light Bombers.
North American B-25 (Mitchell) a battle tested (two-engine air cooled) aircraft of speed, long range, good load carrying characteristics (made the raid on Tokio). No airplane of same class, friendly or enemy, is known to equal it. Martin B-26, battle-tested, comparable to B-25. None but the United States has so efficient a plane in its class. Douglas SBD (Dauntless) Navy carrier-based standard dive bomber (single-engine, air-cooled). This craft is the best in the world in its category. Grumman TBF (Avenger) single-engine, air-cooled, made its debut at Midway. Bigger, more powerful airplane than Douglas Devastator, it is the best carrier-based torpedo plane.
The Japanese Zero captured in the Aleutians is well built, flies beautifully but has no armor, less power (900 h.p.), less speed (about 300 m.p.h), less fire power (2 cannon, 2 machine guns) than the best United States fighters.
Airplane Bombs.
The new Flying Fortresses and British Lancasters now can carry 4,000 pound 'block buster' bombs. More powerful explosive and more of it crammed into a lighter casing make the block buster burst with increased lateral force.
American Fliers.
Lieut. Gen. George H. Brett, reporting on the basis of his experience as commander of the United Nations Air Force in the Southwest Pacific, said that, expanding toward 2,000,000 men, the Army Air Force's accident rate was lowest of any in the world and the percentage of planes returning from battle was highest.
